Copy of Interplay_ The Process of Interpersonal Communication14.pdf

Interplay

Interplay The Process of Interpersonal Communication FOURTEENTH EDITION

Ronald B. Adler

Santa Barbara City College

Lawrence B. Rosenfeld

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Russell F. Proctor II

Northern Kentucky University

New York•Oxford OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © 2018, 2015, 2013, 2010, 2007, 2004, 2001 by Oxford University Press For titles covered by Section 112 of the US Higher Education Opportunity Act, please visit www.oup.com/us/he for the latest information about pricing and alternate formats.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Adler, Ronald B. (Ronald Brian), 1946– author. | Rosenfeld, Lawrence B., author. | Proctor, Russell F., author. Title: Interplay: the process of interpersonal communication / Ronald B. Adler, Santa Barbara City College, Lawrence B. Rosenfeld, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Russell F. Proctor II, Northern Kentucky University. Description: Fourteenth edition. | New York, NY: Oxford University Press, [2018] Identifiers: LCCN 2017031955 | ISBN 9780190646257 (pbk.) | ISBN 9780190646264 (pbk.) Subjects: LCSH: Interpersonal communication. Classification: LCC BF637.C45 A33 2018 | DDC 302.2—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017031955 987654321 Printed by LSC Communications, United States of America

Brief Contents Preface xv

PART

FOUNDATIONS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION 1

Interpersonal Process 3

Culture and Interpersonal Communication 37

Interpersonal Communication and the Self 69

Perceiving Others 103

CREATING AND RESPONDING TO MESSAGES 5 Language 135 6

Nonverbal Communication 165

Listening: Receiving and Responding 195

8 Emotions 227

PART

DIMENSIONS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 9

Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships 259

10 Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners 291 11 Managing Conflict 323 12 Communication Climate 353 Glossary G-1 References R-1 Credits C-1 Author Index AI-1 Subject Index SI-1

Contents Preface xv PART

FOUNDATIONS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION 1 Interpersonal Process 3 Why We Communicate 4 Physical Needs 5 Identity Needs 6 Social Needs 7 Practical Needs 8

FEATURES MEDIA CLIP: Solitude and Connection: Wild 6 DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: Loneliness and the Internet: A Delicate Balance 7 AT WORK: Communication and Career Advancement 9 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Tweeting: The Channel Affects the Message 12 MEDIA CLIP: Pathologically Competent: House of Cards 22 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Your Use of Social Media 24 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Sidestepping Permanence: The Attraction of Snapchat 27 WATCH AND DISCUSS: “Men Read Mean Tweets to Female Sports Reporters” 31

The Communication Process 9 Early Models of Communication 9 Insights from the Transactional Communication Model 10 Communication Principles 13 The Nature of Interpersonal Communication 15 Communication Misconceptions 17

Communication Competence 19 Principles of Communication Competence 19 Characteristics of Competent Communication 21

Social Media and Interpersonal Communication 23 Characteristics of Social Media 23 Social Media and Relational Quality 28 Communicating Competently with Social Media 29 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 33 KEY TERMS 34 ACTIVITIES 34

2 Culture and Interpersonal Communication 37 Culture and Communication 38 Culture and Co-Culture 38 Intercultural Communication 40

CO N T EN T S

MEDIA CLIP: Embracing Tradition and Change: Meet the Patels 39

Interpersonal and Intercultural Dimensions ofCommunication 42 Intercultural Differences as Generalizations 43

MEDIA CLIP: Straddling Cultures: black-ish 49

Cultural Values and Norms 43

FEATURES

DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: When “Harmless” Labels Do Harm 50 AT WORK: Organizations Are Cultures 55 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Saying “I’m Sorry” in Japanese and English: Different Codes 58 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: What Is Your Intercultural Communication Competence? 60 WATCH AND DISCUSS: “Momondo: TheDNA Journey” 62 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Living in Another Culture: Adapting and Adopting 63

High Versus Low Context 43 Individualism Versus Collectivism 44 Power Distance 46 Uncertainty Avoidance 47 Achievement Versus Nurturing 48

Co-Cultures and Communication 48 Race and Ethnicity 48 Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation 50 Age/Generation 51 (Dis)abilities 52 Socioeconomic Status 53

Codes and Culture 54 Verbal Codes 54 Nonverbal Codes 58

Developing Intercultural Communication Competence 59 Motivation and Attitude 60 Tolerance for Ambiguity 61 Open-Mindedness 61 Knowledge and Skill 62 Patience and Perseverance 63 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 64 KEY TERMS 65 ACTIVITIES 66

3 Interpersonal Communication and the Self 69 Communication and the Self-Concept 70 How the Self-Concept Develops 71 Characteristics of the Self-Concept 73 The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Communication 76

vii

viii

CONTENTS

FEATURES

Presenting the Self 77

FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Does Instagram = #Instasad? 73

Public and Private Selves 78 Characteristics of Impression Management 79 Face-to-Face Impression Management 80 Impression Management in Social Media 80 Impression Management and Honesty 83

WATCH AND DISCUSS: “Dove Evolution Commercial” 74 MEDIA CLIP: Reflecting Years of Appraisal: This Is Us 75 AT WORK: Impression Management in the Workplace 81 MEDIA CLIP: The Promise and Perils of Online Relationships: Catfish: The TV Show 82 DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: Talking Frankly About STDs 90 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Online and Offline Self-Disclosure 93

Disclosing the Self 84 Self-Disclosure Factors 85 Models of Self-Disclosure 86 Benefits and Risks of Self-Disclosure 88 Guidelines for Self-Disclosure 91 Alternatives to Self-Disclosure 93 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 98 KEY TERMS 99 ACTIVITIES 100

4 Perceiving Others 103 The Perception Process 104 Reality Is Constructed 104 Steps in the Perception Process 106 FEATURES FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Online Channels Affect Perception 108 WATCH AND DISCUSS: “All That WeShare” 110 AT WORK: Sexual Harassment andPerception 115 MEDIA CLIP: Master of Perception: Sherlock 118 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Hurtful Communication: A Matter ofPerception 122 DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: Distorting Perception: The Gaslight Effect 126 MEDIA CLIP: Gaining Empathy: Undercover Boss 128 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Your Empathy Quotient 129

Influences on Perception 110 Access to Information 110 Physiological Influences 110 Psychological Influences 112 Social Influences 113 Cultural Influences 117

Common Tendencies in Perception 118 We Make Snap Judgments 119 We Cling to First Impressions 120 We Judge Ourselves More Charitably Than We Do Others 121 We Are Influenced by Our Expectations 122 We Are Influenced by the Obvious 123 We Assume Others Are Like Us 123

Synchronizing Our Perceptions 124 Perception Checking 124 Building Empathy 126 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 130 KEY TERMS 131 ACTIVITIES 131

CO N T EN T S

PART

CREATING AND RESPONDING TO MESSAGES

5 Language 135 The Nature of Language 136 Language Is Symbolic 136 Language Is Rule-Governed 137 Language Is Subjective 139 Language and Worldview 139

FEATURES MEDIA CLIP: Invented Languages: Game of Thrones 137 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: The Negative Consequences of Fat Talk 141 AT WORK: Swearing on the Job 144 DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: Sorry, Not Sorry 145 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Sexist Language 146

The Impact of Language 141 Naming and Identity 141 Affiliation 142 Power and Politeness 143 Sexism and Racism 145 Precision and Vagueness 148 The Language of Responsibility 152

Gender and Language 156

WATCH AND DISCUSS: “Vague Facebook Posts—Congressional Hearings” 149

Extent of Gender Differences 156 Non-Gender Influences on Language Use 158

MEDIA CLIP: Damning with Faint Praise: Florence Foster Jenkins 151

Social Media and Language 158

FOCUS ON RESEARCH: The Language of Online Community 159

Online Language and Impression Management 158 Online Language and Gender 160 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 161 KEY TERMS 162 ACTIVITIES 162

6 Nonverbal Communication 165 Nonverbal Communication Defined 166 Characteristics of Nonverbal Communication 167

FEATURES FOCUS ON RESEARCH: The Power of Periods. In Texting. 171 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors 174 WATCH AND DISCUSS: “Body Language” 175 MEDIA CLIP: A Life of Deception: TheAmericans 176 MEDIA CLIP: In a Different Voice: Speechless 179

Nonverbal Communication Is Always Occurring 167 Nonverbal Communication Is Primarily Relational 168 Nonverbal Communication Is Ambiguous 169 Nonverbal Communication Occurs in Mediated Messages 170 Nonverbal Communication Is Influenced by Culture and Gender 170

Functions of Nonverbal Communication 172 Creating and Maintaining Relationships 172 Regulating Interaction 173 Influencing Others 175 Influencing Ourselves 175

CONTENTS

FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Nonverbal Imitation: The Sincerest Form of Flattery 180

Concealing/Deceiving 175 Managing Impressions 177

AT WORK: Let Your Voice Be Heard 183

Types of Nonverbal Communication 178

DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: The Inequality of “Lookism” 188

Body Movement 178 Touch 181 Voice 182 Distance 184 Territoriality 187 Time 187 Physical Attractiveness 188 Clothing 189 Physical Environment 189 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 190 KEY TERMS 191 ACTIVITIES 192

7 Listening: Receiving and Responding 195 The Nature of Listening 196 The Importance of Listening 196 Listening Defined 197 Listening Styles 199 FEATURES AT WORK: Listening on the Job 197 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Your Listening Styles 200 MEDIA CLIP: Multifaceted Listening: TheProfit 201 DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: TheMyth of Multitasking 205 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Responding Helps Speakers Tell Their Stories 207 WATCH AND DISCUSS: “Brené Brown on Empathy” 215 MEDIA CLIP: Responding Directively: Scandal 219 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Exchanging Advice Online 220

The Challenge of Listening 202 Recognizing Barriers to Listening 202 Avoiding Poor Listening Habits 203

Components of Listening 204 Hearing 204 Attending 204 Understanding 205 Remembering 206 Responding 206

Types of Listening Responses 207 Silent Listening 208 Questioning 209 Paraphrasing 211 Empathizing 214 Supporting 216 Analyzing 218

CO N T EN T S

Evaluating 218 Advising 219 Which Response Type to Use? 221 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 222 KEY TERMS 223 ACTIVITIES 224

8 Emotions 227 What Are Emotions? 229

FEATURES MEDIA CLIP: Intelligence of Another Variety: The Big Bang Theory 228 WATCH AND DISCUSS: “The Marriage Hack” 231 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Managing Grief with Humor 233 AT WORK: Emotional Labor on the Job 236 DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: Fictional Characters, Real Feelings: Parasocial Relationships 237 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Your Emotional Intelligence 243 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: When Talking About Feelings Makes Things Worse 252 MEDIA CLIP: Self-Talk and Resilience: Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt 254

Physiological Changes 229 Nonverbal Behavior 230 Cognitive Interpretations 230 Verbal Expression 231

Influences on Emotional Expression 232 Personality 232 Culture 233 Gender 234 Social Conventions and Roles 235 Social Media 235 Emotional Contagion 237

Expressing Emotions Effectively 238 Recognize Your Feelings 238 Choose the Best Language 239 Share Multiple Feelings 241 Recognize the Difference Between Feeling and Acting 242 Accept Responsibility for Your Feelings 242 Choose the Best Time and Place to Express Your Feelings 242

Managing Emotions 244 Facilitative and Debilitative Emotions 244 Thoughts Cause Feelings 245 Irrational Thinking and Debilitative Emotions 247 Minimizing Debilitative Emotions 251 Maximizing Facilitative Emotions 254 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 255 KEY TERMS 256 ACTIVITIES 256

xii

CONTENTS

PART

DIMENSIONS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 9 Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships 259 Why We Form Relationships 260

FEATURES DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: The Anguish of Abusive Relationships 263

Appearance 260 Similarity 261 Complementarity 262 Rewards 262 Competency 264 Proximity 265 Disclosure 265

MEDIA CLIP: The Power and Peril of Disclosure: Homeland 265

Models of Relational Dynamics 266

FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Communicating About Relational Baggage 268

Stages of Relational Development 266 Dialectical Tensions 273

FOCUS ON RESEARCH: The Dialectical Tensions of Cell Phone Use 275

Communicating About Relationships 278

MEDIA CLIP: Finding Connection: Trainwreck 276 WATCH AND DISCUSS: “Couples Swap Phones and Go Through Each Other’s History” 277 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Relational Maintenance 282

Content and Relational Messages 278 Maintaining and Supporting Relationships 280 Repairing Damaged Relationships 284 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 287 KEY TERMS 288 ACTIVITIES 288

AT WORK: Relational Repair on theJob 284

10 Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners 291 Communication in Friendships 292

FEATURES

Types of Friendships 292 Friendships, Gender, and Communication 294 Friendship and Social Media 297 Communication in Successful Friendships 298

FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Close Friendships: State of the Union 295

Communication in the Family 301

WATCH AND DISCUSS: “Can Men and Women Be Just Friends?” 296 AT WORK: Social Media Relationships with Coworkers 300

Creating the Family Through Communication 302 Patterns of Family Communication 304 Effective Communication in Families 307

CO N T EN T S MEDIA CLIP: Voluntary Families: Finding Dory 302 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Your Family’s Communication Pattern 307 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Parental Disclosures with Adult Children 309 MEDIA CLIP: Maybe “I Do,” Maybe I Don’t: Married at First Sight 315

Communication in Romantic Relationships 311 Characteristics of Romantic Relationships 312 Effective Communication in Romantic Relationships 316 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 319 KEY TERMS 320 ACTIVITIES 320

DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: Virtually Unfaithful: Emotional Infidelity Online 318

11 Managing Conflict 323 What Is Conflict? 324

FEATURES FOCUS ON RESEARCH: The Dangers of Mind-Reading Expectations 326 MEDIA CLIP: Fighting over Scarce Resources: Empire 327 DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: Ghosting: The Ultimate Silent Treatment 329 WATCH AND DISCUSS: “Signs You’re the Passive Aggressive Friend” 331 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Your Method of Conflict Resolution 335 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: “We Have to Talk”: Men and Women in Conflict 342 MEDIA CLIP: Hostile Takeover: TheFounder 345 AT WORK: Third-Party Dispute Resolution 346

Expressed Struggle 325 Interdependence 325 Perceived Incompatible Goals 325 Perceived Scarce Resources 326 Inevitability 326

Conflict Styles 327 Avoidance (Lose-Lose) 328 Accommodation (Lose-Win) 329 Competition (Win-Lose) 330 Compromise 331 Collaboration (Win-Win) 332 Which Style to Use? 334

Conflict in Relational Systems 336 Complementary and Symmetrical Conflict 336 Serial Arguments 338 Toxic Conflict: The “Four Horsemen” 339 Conflict Rituals 340

Variables in Conflict Styles 341 Gender 341 Culture 343

Conflict Management in Practice 344 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 349 KEY TERMS 350 ACTIVITIES 350

xiii

xiv

CONTENTS

12 Communication Climate 353 What Is a Communication Climate? 354 How Communication Climates Develop 355 Levels of Message Confirmation 356 Causes and Effects of Defensiveness 361

FEATURES DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION: Cyberbullying: Inflicting Pain Online 355 ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION: Confirming and Disconfirming Communication 358 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: Phubbing: Losing Out to Your Partner’s Phone 359 MEDIA CLIP: Victimized by Aggressiveness: Moonlight 360 FOCUS ON RESEARCH: A Blurt Can Hurt 366 MEDIA CLIP: Changing the Climate, Ever So Slowly: Doc Martin 369 WATCH AND DISCUSS: “Emotional Correctness” 370

Creating Supportive Climates 362 Evaluation Versus Description 363 Control Versus Problem Orientation 364 Strategy Versus Spontaneity 365 Neutrality Versus Empathy 366 Superiority Versus Equality 367 Certainty Versus Provisionalism 368

Invitational Communication 370 The Language of Choice 371 Responding Nondefensively to Criticism 372 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 377 KEY TERMS 378 ACTIVITIES 378

AT WORK: Taking the High Road: Keeping Cool Under Fire 373

Glossary G-1 References R-1 Credits C-1 Author Index AI-1 Subject Index SI-1

Preface A wise editor once told us that any revision to a successful textbook should be both familiar and fresh. It should include plenty of updated material, but it should retain the essence of its time-tested approach. We have worked hard to make sure this edition of Interplay achieves those goals. This new edition builds on the approach that has served students and professors over almost four decades. The accessible writing style is based on the belief that even complicated ideas can be presented in a straightforward way. A variety of thought-provoking photos, sidebars, and cartoons make the subject more interesting and compelling. In terms of its scholarly grounding, Interplay cites more than 1,500 sources, nearly a third of which are new to this edition. These citations have a strong communication focus, as we continue to spotlight scholarship from our field. Research and theory aren’t presented for their own sake, but rather to explain how the process of interpersonal communication operates in everyday life.

NEW IN THIS EDITION One effective way of incorporating new concepts and research is to offer plenty of cutting-edge material in sidebars. Reviewers tell us these sidebars are essential to Interplay’s success, so we’ve updated them across the board. • Focus on Research boxes—18 of which are new to this edition—cover timely subjects including the pros and cons of communicating via Snapchat, cultural differences in how speakers apologize, the relationship between Instagram and social comparison, the role of punctuation in text messages, relational struggles caused by cell phone use, disclosures between parents and their adult children, and the negative effects of mind-reading expectations. • Dark Side of Communication sidebars address problems including how seemingly harmless labels can cause interpersonal damage, talking frankly about STDs, saying “sorry” too often, the dangers of multitasking, and the harmful effects of “ghosting.” • Media Clips use both television shows and films to dramatize how communication concepts operate in everyday life. New TV shows include black-ish (co-cultural communication), This Is Us (self- concept), Game of Thrones (language), The Americans (deception), Speechless (nonverbal communication), Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (emotion management), and Empire (conflict). New feature films include Wild (social needs), Meet the Patels (culture), Trainwreck (relational dialectics), Finding Dory (family), and Moonlight (aggressiveness). • At Work boxes help readers apply scholarship to their careers. New topics include letting your voice be heard (literally) on the job, relational repair at work, online relationships with coworkers, and keeping cool under fire.

xvi

PREFACE

• Watch and Discuss is a new feature in this edition. These thumbnail images point to YouTube videos for viewing in or out of the classroom and are followed by two discussion prompts each. Topics include mean tweets and disinhibition, “vaguebooking” (posting ambiguous messages on Facebook), how your body language can affect the way you feel, listening with empathy, privacy management and cell phones, whether women and men can “just be friends,” passive aggressive communication, and “emotional correctness.” • Assessing Your Communication instruments in every chapter help students understand and improve how they communicate in important relationships. New instruments in this edition focus on social media use and relational maintenance skills. We have also made many changes to the text proper to address the latest communication research and changing communication practices. These include the following: • Chapter 1 includes two new topics: masspersonal communication— messages that are personal yet public; and multimodality—the ability and willingness to use multiple channels of communication. • Chapter 2 offers new discussions on code-switching, intersectionality, and communicating about disabilities. • Chapter 4 has enhanced coverage of empathy and the role it plays in helping communicators understand and appreciate each other. • Chapter 5 offers a new summary of gender and language usage. • Chapter 6 adds a review of research on how our own nonverbal behavior influences the way we feel. • Chapter 8 provides new coverage of self-talk as a means for managing emotions. • Chapter 10 updates and extends the discussion of friendship and describes the relational value of singleness. • Chapter 11 moves up the topic of conflict and describes how serial arguments work in interpersonal communication. • Chapter 12 now concludes the book with coverage of communication climate, which includes new and updated material on confirming messages, aggressiveness, ostracism, and the language of choice.

DIGITAL AND PRINT ANCILLARY RESOURCES In addition to the text, a variety of ancillaries provide resources for both instructors and students. Whether you have taught with Interplay for many years or are encountering it for the first time, you will note that we use film, television, and other references to popular culture throughout the book to engage students and help them apply concepts. While this has long been a hallmark of our approach and book, we’re pleased to now offer featured videos for students and instructors. Short clips from the Media Clip and Watch and Discuss features are now included on the student

PREFA CE

website, in the course cartridges for your learning management system, and in OUP’s Dashboard system and its integrated ebook.

Online Learning • Dashboard delivers an enhanced ebook and interactive activities and assessments to track student progress in a simple and intuitive online environment. All Dashboard content is engineered to work on mobile devices, including Android and iOS platforms. With this edition’s Dashboard, professors and students have more interactive and engaging content than ever before. Each chapter includes: ❍ Brief

audio and video chapter summaries to help students review the basics ❍ Flashcards to help students master new vocabulary ❍ Interactive drag-and-drop chapter summaries to test whether students know the basics and have the vocabulary in hand ❍ Multiple-choice pre- and posttests (20 multiple-choice questions each) to assess students’ knowledge and ability to understand and apply information ❍ Media Clip and Watch and Discuss video clips with assessments, based on the book’s features, to help students apply what they have learned ❍ Interactive versions of the book’s popular self-assessments to give students immediate feedback on their communication skills and behaviors • Course Cartridges for a variety of learning management systems— including BlackBoard, Canvas, D2L, Moodle, and more—gives you Oxford’s quality content in your learning management system in just a few clicks. The course cartridge for Interplay includes the test bank and the following resources and activities in every chapter: flashcards, pre- and posttests (20 multiple-choice questions each), audio and video chapter summaries, and Media Clip and Watch and Discuss video clips with multiple-choice assessments. With no new systems to learn and no access code for students, course cartridges make online assignments easy and accessible to all.

For Instructors • The Ancillary Resource Center (ARC) at www.oup-arc.com is a convenient, instructor-focused, single destination for resources to accompany Interplay. Accessed online through individual user accounts, the ARC provides instructors with up-to-date ancillaries at any time while guaranteeing the security of grade-significant resources. In addition, it allows OUP to keep instructors informed when new content becomes available. The ARC for Interplay contains a variety of materials to aid in teaching: ❍ An

enhanced Instructor’s Manual and Computerized Test Bank provides teaching tips, exercises, and test questions that will prove useful to both new and veteran instructors. The Instructor’s

xvii

xviii

PREFACE

Manual includes teaching strategies, course outlines, plentiful inclass activities with specific instructions and teaching tips, discussion prompts, and journal prompts. The comprehensive Test Bank offers approximately 100 class-tested exam questions per chapter in multiple-choice, true/false, essay, and matching formats. ❍ Newly revised PowerPoint-based lecture slides have been redesigned for optimal utility and accessibility. • Now Playing: Instructor’s Edition, an instructor-only online supplement, includes an introduction on how to incorporate film examples in class, sample responses to the numerous discussion questions in the student edition of Now Playing, viewing guides, additional films, and references. Contact your Oxford University Press representative or call (800) 280–0280 for more information on accessing these resources.

For Students • Now Playing: Learning Communication Through Film looks at contemporary and classic feature films through the lens of communication principles. Now Playing illustrates a variety of both individual scenes and full-length films, highlighting concepts and offering discussion questions for a mass medium that is interactive, familiar, and easily accessible. This resource gives you numerous film examples at your fingertips, saving you valuable preparation time. Contact your Oxford University Press representative or call (800) 280–0280 to package Now Playing with your textbook. • The companion website at www.oup.com/us/interplay offers a wealth of free and open study resources for students: flashcards, video and audio chapter summaries, interactive self-tests, and Media Clip and Watch and Discuss video clips with multiple-choice assessments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The book you are reading wouldn’t have been possible without the help of many talented people. We are grateful to the many colleagues whose suggestions have helped make this book a far better one: Julie Allee Ivy Tech Community College

Chantele S. Carr Estrella Mountain College

Daniel Johnson Southwestern Michigan College

Marie Arcidiacono Los Medanos College–Brentwood Campus

Audrey Deterding Northern Arizona University

Shyla Lefever Old Dominion University

Liz Edgecomb Xavier University of Louisiana

Julie Mayberry North Carolina State University

Annette N. Hamel Western Michigan University

Bonnie McCracken SUNY Geneseo

Debra Harper-LeBlanc Lone Star College–North Harris

Lucas Messer Scottsdale Community College

Diane M. Badzinski Colorado Christian University Ellen Bland Central Carolina Community College

PREFA CE

xix

Craig Parmley Ivy Tech Community College

Narissra Punyanunt-Carter Texas Tech University

Heidi Schara Riverland Community College

Karri Pearson Normandale Community College

Leighann Rechtin Ivy Tech Community College

Lindsay Timmerman University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

Interplay continues to benefit from the contributions of these colleagues who helped shape previous editions: Marcanne Andersen Tidewater Community College

Darlene J. Geiger Portland State University

Tim Moreland Catawba College

Angie M. S. Anderson Anoka-Ramsey Community College

Debra Gonsher Bronx Community College

Mark Morman Baylor University

Aurora Auter University of Southwestern Louisiana

Em Griffin Wheaton College

Kelly Morrison Michigan State University

Nancy Bandiera Charleston Southern University

Lowell Habel Chapman University

Johance F. Murray Hostos Community College/ CUNY

Sharon Beal Long Beach City College/ ChapmanUniversity

Gail Hankins Wake Technical College

Noreen Mysyk North Central College

Meredith Harrigan SUNY Geneseo

Gretchen R. Norling University of West Florida

Kristin Haun University of Tennessee

Joey Pogue Pittsburg State University

Lisa C. Hebert Louisiana State University

Tracey Powers Central Arizona College

Brittany W. Hochstaetter Wake Technical Community College

Laurie Pratt Chaffey College

Constance Berman Berkshire Community College Heather Bixler College of the Sequoias Sandra Bodin-Lerner Kean University Colleen Butcher University of Florida Leeva Chung University of San Diego Kathleen Czech Point Loma Nazarene University

Shaorong Huang Raymond Walters College— University of Cincinnati

Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter Texas Tech University Rasha I. Ramzy Georgia State University

Joy A. Jones Atlantic Cape Community College

Rachel Reznik Elmhurst College

Beverly Merrill Kelley California Lutheran University

Elizabeth Ribarsky University of Illinois—Springfield

Katrina Eicher Elizabethtown Community College

Betty Kennan Radford University

Gregory W. Rickert Lexington Community College

Susan Fletcher Hocking College

Anastasia Kurylo Marymount Manhattan College

Jennifer A. Samp University of Georgia

Karyn Friesen Lone Star College—Montgomery

Andrea Lambert South Northern Kentucky University

Julie Simanski Des Moines Area Community College

Kristin K. Froemling Radford University

Phil Martin North Central State College

Debbie Sonandre Tacoma Community College

Andrea M. Davis University of South Carolina Upstate

PREFACE

Renee Strom Saint Cloud State University

Judith Vogel Des Moines Area Community College

Michael Wittig Waukesha County Technical College

Dennis Sutton Grand Rapids Community College

Emanuelle Wessels Missouri State University

Gordon Young Kingsborough Community College

Our thanks to Rachel Reznik (Elmhurst College) and Jessica Kratzer (Northern Kentucky University), who served as Contributing Editors on this edition and made numerous helpful additions to the text. We salute the team of talented and congenial professionals at Oxford University Press, led and inspired by John Challice. We thank Toni Magyar, our hands-on Editor; Michele Laseau, Art Director; Barbara Mathieu, Senior Production Editor; Lisa Grzan, Production Manager; Theresa Stockton, Production Team Lead; Paul Longo, Assistant Editor; and Allegra Howard, Katlin Kocher, and Alyssa Quinones, Editorial Assistants. We’re also grateful for the oversight of Editorial Director Patrick Lynch and Director of Development Thom Holmes. Our Developmental Editor, Lauren Mine, deserves special acknowledgment: A full account of her contributions would require a book of its own. Our thanks also go to James Fraleigh for his copyediting talents and to Colleen Dunham for crafting the useful indexes. Sandy Cooke of OUP Canada tracked down images from films and television. Sherri Adler chose the evocative photos that help make Interplay unique.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ronald B. Adler is Professor Emeritus of Communication at Santa Barbara City College. He is coauthor of Understanding Human Communication (OUP, 2017); Essential Communication (OUP, 2018); Looking Out, Looking In (2016); and Communicating at Work: Principles and Practices for Business and the Professions (2013). Beyond his professional life, Ron tries to give back to his community. He also enjoys cycling, hiking, traveling, and spending time with his family. Lawrence B. Rosenfeld is Professor Emeritus of Communication at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His articles appear in journals in communication, education, social work, sport psychology, and psychology, and he is the author of books on small-group, interpersonal, and nonverbal communication. Lawrence has received teaching and research awards from the National Communication Association and in 2012 received the William C. Friday Award for Excellence in Teaching. He is an artist and co-owner of Live Gently Art. Russell F. Proctor II is Professor Emeritus of Communication at Northern Kentucky University. He won NKU’s Outstanding Professor Award in 1997 and has also received recognition for his teaching from the National Communication Association, the Central States Communication Association, and the Kentucky Communication Association. Russ joined the Interplay team in the mid-1990s and was the lead author on this edition of the book. He loves sports, music, movies, and traveling with family and friends.

Interplay

1 Interpersonal Process LEARNING OBJECTIVES

CHAPTER OUTLINE

1.1

Why We Communicate 4

1.2 1.3 1.4

Recognize the needs that communication satisfies. Explain the interpersonal communication process: its transactional nature, governing principles, and characteristics. Identify characteristics of effective communication and competent communicators. Describe the advantages and drawbacks of various social media communication channels in relation to face-to-face communication.

FEATURES Media Clip: Solitude and Connection: Wild 6 Dark Side of Communication: Loneliness and the Internet: ADelicate Balance 7 At Work: Communication and Career Advancement 9 Focus on Research: Tweeting: The Channel Affects the Message 12 Media Clip: Pathologically Competent: House of Cards 22 Assessing Your Communication: Your Use of Social Media 24 Focus on Research: Sidestepping Permanence: The Attraction of Snapchat 27 Watch and Discuss: “Men Read Mean Tweets to Female Sports Reporters” 31

• Physical Needs 5 • Identity Needs 6 • Social Needs 7 • Practical Needs 8

The Communication Process 9 • Early Models of Communication 9 • Insights from the Transactional Communication Model 10 • Communication Principles 13 • The Nature of Interpersonal Communication 15 • Communication Misconceptions 17

Communication Competence 19 • Principles of Communication Competence 19 • Characteristics of Competent Communication 21

Social Media and Interpersonal Communication 23 • Characteristics of Social Media 23 • Social Media and Relational Quality 28 • Communicating Competently with Social Media 29 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 33 KEY TERMS 34 ACTIVITIES 34

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

VERYONE COMMUNICATES. Students and professors, parents and children, employers and employees, friends, strangers, and enemies—all communicate. We have been communicating with others from earliest childhood and will almost certainly keep doing so until we die. Why study an activity you’ve done your entire life? First, studying interpersonal communication will give you a new look at a familiar topic. For instance, you may not have realized that you can’t not communicate or that more communication doesn’t always improve relationships—topics that you’ll read about in a few pages. In this sense, exploring human communication is like studying anatomy or botany—everyday objects and processes take on new meaning. A second, more compelling reason is that we all could stand to be more effective communicators. A nationwide survey identified “lack of effective communication” as the leading cause of relational breakups, ahead of money, relatives or in-laws, sexual problems, previous relationships, or children (National Communication Association, 1999). Ineffective communication is also a major problem in the workplace, as 62 percent of surveyed executives indicated in another study (American Management Association, 2012). Perhaps that’s why parents identify communication as the most important skill set their children need to succeed in life (Goo, 2015). Pause now to make a mental list of communication problems you have encountered. You’ll probably see that no matter how successful your relationships are at home, with friends, at school, and at work, there is plenty of room for improvement in your everyday life. The information that follows will help you communicate better with some of the people who matter most to you.

WHY WE COMMUNICATE Research demonstrating the importance of communication has been around longer than you might think. Frederick II, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire from 1220 to 1250, carried out language deprivation experiments. A medieval historian described a dramatically inhumane one: He bade foster mothers and nurses to suckle the children, to bathe and wash them, but in no way to prattle with them, for he wanted to learn whether they would speak the Hebrew language, which was the oldest, or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perhaps the language of their parents, of whom they had been born. But he labored in vain because all the children died. For they could not live without the petting and joyful faces and loving words of their foster mothers. (Ross & McLaughlin, 1949, p. 366)

Contemporary researchers have found less barbaric ways to investigate the importance of communication. In one classic study of isolation, five participants were paid to remain alone in a locked room. One lasted for 8 days. Three held out for 2 days, one commenting, “Never again.” The fifth participant lasted only 2 hours (Schachter, 1959). Real-life experiences also demonstrate our strong need for contact. Reflecting on his seven years as a hostage in Lebanon, former news

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

correspondent Terry Anderson said point-blank, “I would rather have had the worst companion than no companion at all” (Gawande, 2009). You might claim that solitude would be a welcome relief at times. It’s true that all of us need time by ourselves, often more than we get. On the other hand, each of us has a point beyond which solitude becomes painful. In other words, we all need people. We all need to communicate.

PHYSICAL NEEDS Communication is so important that its presence or absence affects health. People who process a negative experience by talking about it report improved life satisfaction, as well as enhanced mental and physical health, compared with those who only think privately about it (Francis, 2003; Sousa, 2002). Research conducted with police of- After spending a year alone in space, astronaut Scott Kelly dehis biggest challenge: “I think the hardest part is being ficers found that being able to talk easily with col- scribed isolated in a physical sense from people on the ground that are leagues and supervisors about work-related trauma important to you.” How satisfied are you with the amount and was linked to greater physical and mental health quality of personal contact in your life? What would be the ideal amount of contact? (Stephens & Long, 2000). And a broader study of over 3,500 adults revealed that as little as 10 minutes of talking a day, face to face or by phone, improves memory and boosts intellectual function (Ybarra et al., 2008). In extreme cases, communication can even become a matter of life or death. As a Navy pilot, U.S. Senator John McCain was shot down over North Vietnam and held as a prisoner of war (POW) for six years, often in solitary confinement. POWs in his camp set up codes to send messages by tapping on walls to laboriously spell out words. McCain describes the importance of maintaining contact with one another despite serious risks: The punishment for communicating could be severe, and a few POWs, having been caught and beaten for their efforts, had their spirits broken as their bodies were battered. Terrified of a return trip to the punishment room, they would lie still in their cells when their comrades tried to tap them up on the wall. Very few would remain uncommunicative for long. To suffer all this alone was less tolerable than torture. Withdrawing in silence from the fellowship of other Americans . . . was to us the approach of death. (McCain, 1999, p. 12)

Communication isn’t a necessity just for prisoners of war. Evidence gathered by a host of researchers (e.g., Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; ParkerPope, 2010; Yang et al., 2016) has shown that interpersonal communication is vital among civilians as well. For example: • A meta-analysis of nearly 150 studies involving a total of over 300,000 participants found that socially connected people—those with strong networks of family and friends—live an average of 3.7years longer than those who are socially isolated.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

• People with strong relationships have significantly lower risks of coronary disease, hypertension, and obesity than do people with less social integration. • Divorced, separated, or widowed people are 5 to 10 times more likely to need hospitalization for mental illnesses than their married counterparts. Happily married people also have lower incidences of pneumonia, surgery, and cancer than single people. (It’s important to note that the quality of the relationship is more important than the institution of marriage in these studies.)

Media Clip

Solitude and Connection: Wild Striving to escape grief and a life plagued by personal mistakes, Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) embarks on a solitary thousand-mile trek along the rugged Pacific Crest Trail. In the wilderness, Strayed spends much of her time reflecting on the past and pondering her options for the future.In her self-enforced solitude, she also discovers the value of human connection. She eagerly seeks out encounters with other hikers to alleviate loneliness, satisfy practical needs for food and water, and answer questions about her own identity. Both solitude and communicationhelp her come to terms with who she is and who she wants to become. Strayed’s journey illustrates many of the reasons we communicate. Not far intoher adventure she exclaims to herself, “I like talking to people. Listening to people . . . that’s a hobby of mine I hadn’t even realized I had.” In her wilderness quest, Strayed learns a lesson that applies to us all: Solitude and reflection can prepare us to embark on healthier relationships.

Such research demonstrates the importance of meaningful personal relationships and explains why social scientists conclude that communication is indispensable for health. Not everyone needs the same amount of contact, and the quality of communication is almost certainly as important as the quantity. Nonetheless, the point remains: Personal communication is essential for our well-being.

IDENTITY NEEDS

Communication does more than enable us to survive. It is the primary way we learn who we are (Harwood, 2005). As you’ll read in Chapter 3, our sense of identity comes from the ways we interact with other people. Are we smart or stupid, attractive or ugly, skillful or inept? The answers to these questions don’t come from looking in the mirror. The reactions of others shape who we are. Deprived of communication with others, we would have no sense of identity. Consider the case of the famous “Wild Boy of Aveyron,” who spent his early childhood without any apparent human contact. The boy was discovered in January 1800 while digging for vegetables in a French village garden. He could not speak, and he showed no behaviors one would expect in a social human. More significant than this absence of social skills was his lack of any identity as a human being. As author Roger Shattuck (1980) put it, “The boy had no human sense of being in the world. He had no sense of himself as a person related to other persons” (p. 37). Only after the influence of a loving “mother” did the boy begin to behave as a human.

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

Contemporary accounts support the essential role communication plays in shaping identity. In some cases, feral children— those raised with limited or no human contact—have demonstrated communication patterns similar to those of animals they grew up around (Newton, 2002). They do not appear to have developed a sense of themselves as humans before interacting with other people. Similarly, Dani’s Story (Lierow, 2011) tells of an abandoned child who was rescued by a loving family and taught to communicate. After considerable time and investment, she was ultimately able to say of herself, “I pretty.” Each of us enters the world with little or no sense of identity. We gain an idea of who we are from the way others define us. As we explain in Chapter 3, the messages we receive in early childhood are the strongest identity shapers, but the influence of others continues throughout life.

SOCIAL NEEDS

DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION

Loneliness and the Internet: A Delicate Balance It’s Friday night and you have no plans. You don’t want to spend the evening by yourself, but it feels like a chore to go out and socialize. Instead, you decide to stay in and interact with others online— perhaps with friends, or maybe with strangers. Is that a good way to meet your social needs? The simple answer is “occasionally, but not regularly.” Research about online communication and loneliness presents a mixed bag. Connecting with others online can help alleviate lonely feelings (Lee et al., 2013), particularly for those who find it challenging to get out and about (Cotten et al., 2013). On the other hand, there’s a correlation between loneliness and what social scientists call a preference for online social interaction (Chung, 2013). The cause-effect relationship isn’t always clear, but research shows that lonely people prefer to interact with others online, which can lead to problematic internet use, which can create a greater sense of loneliness (Kim et al., 2009; Tokunaga, 2016). The key to healthy communication lies in a principle we discuss frequently in this book: all things in moderation. When online communication complements and reinforces in-person relationships, it can be a wonderful tool for meeting social needs. When it mostly or completely replaces face-to-face interaction, there may be cause for concern. The Assessing Your Communication box on page 24 can help you determine whether your online and in-person communication are in balance.

Some social scientists have argued that besides helping define who we are, communication is the principal way relationships are created. For example, Julie Yingling (1994) asserts that children “talk friendships into existence.” The same can be said for adult relationships: It’s impossible to imagine how they could exist without communication. These relationships satisfy a variety of social needs, such as giving and receiving affection, having fun, helping others and being helped, and developing a sense of self-worth (Rubin etal., 1988). Because relationships with others are vital, some theorists have gone so far as to argue that communication is the primary goal of human existence. One anthropologist (Goldschmidt, 1990) calls the drive for meeting social needs through communication “the human career.” There’s a strong link between the quality of communication and the success of relationships. For example, children who grow up in strong conversation-oriented families report having more satisfying same-sex friendships and romantic relationships when they become adults (Koesten, 2004). Women in one study reported that “socializing” contributed more to a satisfying life than virtually any other activity, including relaxing, shopping, eating, exercise, television, or prayer (Kahneman et al., 2004).

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Despite knowing that communication is crucial to social satisfaction, evidence suggests that many people aren’t very successful at managing their interpersonal relationships. For example, one-third of Americans say they’ve never interacted with their neighbors, up from one-fifth who said the same just a few decades ago (Poon, 2015). Research also shows that the number of friendships is in decline. One survey (McPherson et al., 2006) reported that in 1985, Americans had an average of 2.94 close friends. Twenty years later, that number had dropped to 2.08. It’s worth noting that in this same study, more-educated Americans reported having larger and more diverse networks. In other words, higher education can enhance your relational life as well as your intellect.

PRACTICAL NEEDS Along with satisfying physical, identity, and social needs, communication is essential in dealing with more practical matters. It’s the tool that lets us tell the hairstylist to take just a little off the sides, direct the doctor to where it hurts, and inform the plumber that the broken pipe needs attention now! Beyond these obvious needs, a wealth of research demonstrates that communication is an essential ingredient for success in virtually every career. (See the At Work box on page 9.) On-the-job communication skills can even make the difference between life and death for doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners. Researchers discovered that “communication failures” in hospitals and doctors’ offices were linked to more than 1,700 U.S. deaths in a recent five-year period (Bailey, 2016). Studies also show a significant difference between the communication skills of physicians who had no malpractice claims against them and doctors with previous claims (Carroll, 2015). Communication is just as important outside of work. For example, married couples who are effective communicators report happier relationships than less skillful husbands and wives (Ridley et al., 2001)—a finding that has been supported across cultures (Rehman & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2007). And the effects of work–family conflict—a common occurrence that negatively affects marital satisfaction—can be mitigated with constructive communication (Carroll et al., 2013). In school, grade-point averages of college students are related positively to their communication competence (Hawken et al., 1991). In addition, school adjustment, dropout rate, and overall school achievement are highly related to students’ having strong, supportive relationships (Heard, 2007). Psychologist Abraham Maslow (1968) suggests that human needs fall into five categories, each of which must be satisfied before we concern ourselves with the next one. As you read about each need, think about the ways in which communication is often necessary to satisfy it. The most basic needs are physical: sufficient air, water, food, and rest and the ability to reproduce as a species. The second category of Maslow’s needs involves safety: protection from threats to our well-being. Beyond physical and safety concerns are the social needs described earlier. Next, Maslow suggests that each of us has the need for self-esteem: the desire to believe that

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

@work

Communication and Career Advancement

No matter the field, research supports what experienced workers already know—that communication skills are crucial in finding and succeeding in a job. A survey of business leaders rated abilities in spoken and written communication as the most important skills for college graduates to possess (Supiano, 2013). In a later study with similar results, employers told college students that oral communication skills, and particularly interpersonal communication, are essential for workplace success (Coffelt et al., 2016). It’s no wonder that job ads ask for competence in “oral and written communication” more than any other skill set—by a wide margin (Anderson & Gantz, 2013).

Once you’re hired, the need for communication skills is important in virtually every career. Engineers spend the bulk of their working lives speaking and listening, mostly in one-on-one and small-group settings (Darling & Dannels, 2003). Accounting professionals spend 80 percent of their time on the job communicating with others, individually and in groups (Nellermoe et al., 1999). Oral and written communication skills are also vital in the computer industry, according to Silicon Valley employers (Stevens, 2005). Writing in The Scientist magazine, a commentator echoed this sentiment: “If I give any advice, it is that you can never do enough training around your overall communication skills” (Richman, 2002).

we are worthwhile, valuable people. The final category of needs involves self-actualization: the desire to develop our potential to the maximum, to become the best person we can be.

THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS So far, we have talked about communication as if its meaning were perfectly clear. In fact, scholars have debated the definition of communication for years (Littlejohn, 2008). Despite their many disagreements, most would concur that at its essence, communication is about using messages to generate meanings (Korn et al., 2000). Notice how this basic definition holds true across a variety of contexts—public speaking, small groups, mass media, and so forth. The goal of this section is to explain how messages and meanings are created in interpersonal communication and to describe the many factors involved in this complex process.

EARLY MODELS OF COMMUNICATION As the old saying goes, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” With that principle in mind, social scientists of the 1950s created models of the communication process. These early, simplistic models characterized communication as a one-way, linear event—something that a sender “does” by encoding a message and delivering it to a passive receiver who decodes it. This one-way process resembles an archer (the sender) shooting an arrow (the message) at a target (the receiver). For some examples of

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

communication, a linear model can be fitting. If you labor over a thank-you note to get the tone just right before sending it, your message is primarily a one-way effort. Later models represented communication as more of a tennis game, in which players hit balls (send messages) to receivers who then respond. This feedback, or response to a previous message, can be verbal or nonverbal. A back-and-forth chain of text messages seems to fit this description pretty well. Yet those models fail to capture the complexity of the human beings involved in the process. Over time, communication theorists developed increasingly sophisticated versions in an attempt to depict all the factors that affect human interaction.

INSIGHTS FROM THE TRANSACTIONAL COMMUNICATION MODEL No model can completely represent the process of communication, any more than a map can capture everything about the neighborhood where you live. Still, Figure 1.1 reflects a number of important characteristics of transactional communication, the dynamic process in which communicators create meaning together through interaction.

Sending and Receiving Are Usually Simultaneous Some forms of communication, such as email, texting, voice messages, or “snail mail” letters, are asynchronous: There’s a delay between when they are sent and received. But in face-to-face interaction, it’s hard to distinguish sender and receiver. Consider a few examples: • A teacher explaining a difficult concept to a student after class • A parent lecturing a teenager about the family’s curfew rules • A salesperson giving a customer information about a product The impulse is to identify the teacher, parent, and salesperson as senders, whereas the student, teenager, and customer are receivers. Now imagine a confused look on the student’s face; the teenager interrupting defensively; the customer blankly staring into the distance. It’s easy to see Noise

Noise

Communicator sends, receives, assigns meaning

Channel(s)

Messages

A's Environment

FIGURE 1.1 Transactional Communication Model

Noise

Channel(s)

Communicator sends, receives, assigns meaning

B's Environment

Noise

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

that these verbal and nonverbal responses are messages being sent, even while the other person is talking. Because it’s often impossible to distinguish sender from receiver, our communication model replaces these roles with the more accurate term communicator. This term reflects the fact that—at least in face-to-face situations—people are simultaneously senders and receivers who exchange multiple messages.

Meanings Exist in and Among People Messages, whether verbal or nonverbal, don’t have meanings in themselves. Rather, meanings reside in the people who express and interpret them. Imagine that a friend says, “I’m sorry,” after showing up several hours late to a date. This expression might be a genuine apology, an insincere statement designed to defuse your anger, or even a sarcastic jibe. It’s easy to imagine that your friend might mean one thing and you might have a different interpretation of it. The possibility of multiple interpretations means that it is often necessary to negotiate a shared meaning in order for satisfying communication to occur (the perception-checking skills described in Chapter 4 can help with this).

Environment and Noise Affect Communication Problems often arise because communicators occupy different environments (sometimes called contexts): fields of experience that help them make sense of others’ behavior. In communication terminology, environment refers not only to a physical location but also to the personal experiences and cultural background that participants bring to a conversation. You can appreciate the influence of environments by considering your beliefs about an important topic such as work, marriage, or government policies. How might your beliefs be different if your personal history were different? Notice how the model in Figure 1.1 shows that the environments of A and B overlap. This intersecting area represents the background that the communicators have in common. If this overlap didn’t exist, communication would be difficult, if not impossible. Whereas similar environments often facilitate communication, different backgrounds can make effective communication more challenging. Consider just some of the factors that might contribute to different environments, and to communication challenges as a result: • A might belong to one ethnic group and B to another. • A might be rich and B poor. • A might be rushed and B have nowhere to go. • A might have lived a long, eventful life, and B could be young and inexperienced. • A might be passionately concerned with the subject and B indifferent to it. Another factor in the environment that makes communication difficult is what communication scholars call noise: anything that interferes with the transmission and reception of a message. Three types of noise

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

can disrupt communication. External noise includes factors outside the receiver that make it difficult to hear, as well as many other kinds of distractions. For instance, loud music in a bar or a jackhammer grinding in the street might make it hard for you to pay attention to another person. Physiological noise involves biological factors in the receiver that interfere with accurate reception: hearing loss, illness, and so on. Psychological noise refers to cognitive factors that make communication less effective. For instance, a woman who is called “girl” may become so irritated that she has trouble listening objectively to the rest of a speaker’s message.

Channels Make a Difference Communication scholars use the term channel to describe the medium through which messages are exchanged (Berger & Iyengar, 2013; Ledbetter, 2014). Along with face-to-face interaction, we have the option of using mediated communication: sending messages via technological channels such as phones, email, and the internet. The communication channel being used can affect the way a receiver responds to a message. For example, a string of texted emojis probably won’t have the same effect as a handwritten expression of affection, and being fired from a job in person would likely feel different from getting the bad news in an email. Most people intuitively recognize that the selection of a channel depends in part on the kind of message they’re sending. One survey asked students to identify which channel they would find best for delivering a variety of messages (O’Sullivan, 2000). Most respondents said they would have

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Tweeting: The Channel Affects the Message In the years since Marshall McLuhan famously declared that “the medium is the message,” scholars have studied the impact of communication channels on the messages they convey. Obviously it makes a difference whether you send a message in person, by phone, or through social media. A research team investigated an even more specific issue: Do Twitter messages created on mobile devices differ from those created on computers? The short answer to that question is yes. In analyzing some 235 million tweets over a 6-week period, the researchers were able to determine whether the posts originated from mobile devices or from desktop computers. They found that mobile tweets were

more egocentric than tweets from computers—that is, they included more first-person pronouns such as I, me, my, and mine. Tweets sent from mobile devices were also more negative in their wording and content. In other words, a tweet with the phrase “I’m mad” is more likely to be posted from a phone than a desktop. The researchers speculated that mobile devices encourage more spontaneous communication—for better or for worse. As you’ll read in Chapter 3, wise communicators consider pros and cons before making self- disclosures. This research suggests that the medium you choose for sending a message may play an important role in that process.

Murthy, D., Bowman, S., Gross, A. J., & McGarry, M. (2015). Do we tweet differently from our mobile devices? A study of language differences on mobile and web-based Twitter platforms. Journal of Communication, 65, 816–837.

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

little trouble sending positive messages face to face, but that mediated channels had more appeal for sending negative messages (see also Feaster, 2010). You’ll read much more about social media channels later in this chapter and throughout this book.

COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES Beyond communication models, several principles explain the nature of communication.

Communication Is Transactional As we saw in the transactional model, communicators create meaning through their interaction with one another. Perhaps the most important consequence of communication’s transactional nature is mutual influence. To put it simply, communication Like dancing, communication is a transactional process that isn’t something we do to others; rather, it is an activ- you do with others, not to them. How would you describe the nature of the communication transactions in your close ity we do with them. relationships? In what ways is it similar to dancing with a Communication is like dancing with a part- partner? ner: No matter how skilled you are, success depends on the other person’s behavior as well as your own. In communication and in dancing, the partners must adapt to and coordinate with each other. Further, relational communication—like dancing—is a unique creation that arises from how the partners interact. The way you dance probably varies from one partner to another because of its cooperative, transactional nature. Likewise, the way you communicate almost certainly varies with different partners. That’s why competent communicators score high in adaptability, as you’ll read later in this chapter. Psychologist Kenneth Gergen (1991) expresses the transactional nature of communication well when he points out how our success depends on interaction with others. As he says, “one cannot be ‘attractive’ without others who are attracted, a ‘leader’ without others willing to follow, or a ‘loving person’ without others to affirm with appreciation” (p. 158).

Communication Can Be Intentional or Unintentional Some communication is clearly deliberate: You probably plan your words carefully before asking the boss for a raise or offering constructive criticism. Some scholars (e.g., Motley, 1990) argue that only intentional messages like these qualify as communication. However, others (e.g., Buck & VanLear, 2002) suggest that even unintentional behavior is communicative. Suppose, for instance, that a friend overhears you muttering complaints to yourself. Even though you didn’t intend for her to hear your remarks, they certainly did carry a message. In addition to these slips of the tongue, we unintentionally send many nonverbal messages. You might not be aware of your sour expression, impatient shifting, or sighs of boredom, but others read into them nonetheless.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Even the seeming absence of a behavior has communicative value. Recall times when you sent a text or left a voice message and received no reply. You probably assigned some meaning to the nonresponse. Was the other person angry? Indifferent? Too busy to reply? Whether your hunch was correct, the point remains: All behavior has communicative value. “Nothing” never happens. In Interplay we look at the communicative value of both intentional and unintentional behavior. This book takes the position that whatever you do—whether you speak or remain silent, confront or avoid, show emotion or keep a poker face—you provide information to others about your thoughts and feelings. In this sense, we are like transmitters that can’t be shut off. We cannot not communicate (Watzlawick et al., 1967).

Communication Is Irreversible We sometimes wish that we could back up in time, erasing words or acts and replacing them with better alternatives. Unfortunately, such reversal is impossible. Sometimes, further explanation can clear up confusion, or an apology can mollify hurt feelings, but other times no amount of explanation can change the impression you have created. It is no more possible to “unsend” a message—including most digital messages—than to “unsqueeze” a tube of toothpaste. Words said, messages sent, and deeds done are irretrievable.

Communication Is Unrepeatable Because communication is an ongoing process, an event cannot be repeated. The friendly smile you gave a stranger last week may not succeed with the person you encounter tomorrow. Even with the same person, it’s impossible to recreate an event. Why? Because both you and the other person have changed. You’ve both lived longer, and your feelings about each other may have changed. What may seem like the same words and behavior are different each time they are spoken or performed.

Communication Has a Content Dimension and a Relational Dimension Virtually all exchanges have content and relational dimensions. The content dimension involves the information being explicitly discussed: “Please pass the salt”; “Not now, I’m tired”; “You forgot to check your messages.” In addition to this sort of obvious content, all messages also have a relational dimension (Watzlawick et al., 1967) that expresses how you feel about the other person: whether you like or dislike the other person, feel in control or subordinate, feel comfortable or anxious, and so on. For instance, consider the various relational messages you could communicate by simply saying “Thanks a lot” in different ways. You can appreciate the importance of communication’s relational dimension by looking at the photo on page 15. What does this

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

image convey about the relationship between the two people? Sometimes the content dimension of a message is all that matters. For example, you may not care how the barista feels about you as long as you get your coffee. In a qualitative sense, however, the relational dimension of a message is often more important than the content under discussion. This point explains why disputes over apparently trivial subjects become so important. In such cases, we’re not really arguing over whose turn it is to take out the trash or whether to stay home or go out. Instead, we’re disputing the nature of the relationship: who’s in control, and how important are we to each other? Chapter 9 explores several key relational issues in detail. For now, let’s turn to defining interpersonal communication.

THE NATURE OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION As you just read, every exchange—even the most mundane—has a relational dimension. Visualize a brief conversation you’ve recently had with a cashier. Was it friendly or indifferent? Rushed or more leisurely? In every case, the exchanged messages both created and reflected some sort of relationship. In more meaningful relationships, communication is distinctive and nuanced— more personal. It’s helpful, therefore, to view communication with others on a continuum, ranging from impersonal to interpersonal (see Figure 1.2). Many of our interactions in life are relatively impersonal, but more meaningful communication characterizes our key relationships. As discussed in this book, interpersonal communication is interaction distinguished by the qualities of uniqueness, interdependence, self-disclosure, and intrinsic rewards. Let’s explore each component of this definition.

Along with its content, all communication conveys both verbal and nonverbal relational messages. What relational messages do you convey when communicating about everyday matters?

Characteristics of Interpersonal Communication Four features distinguish communication in highly interpersonal relationships from less personal ones: • The first is uniqueness. Whereas social rules and rituals govern impersonal exchanges, the nature and history of particular relationships shape interpersonal exchanges. For example, with one friend you

Highly Impersonal

Highly Interpersonal

(e.g., scheduling appointment, answering phone survey)

(e.g., marriage proposal, asking for forgiveness)

FIGURE 1.2 Impersonal– Interpersonal Communication Continuum

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

might exchange good-natured insults, whereas with another you are careful never to offend. Consider how you communicate with those closest to you and you’ll recognize that each relationship is defined by its own specific language, customs, and pattern—what communication scholars call a relational culture (Farrell et al., 2014). • The second feature that distinguishes interpersonal communication is interdependence. Highly interpersonal communication exchanges reveal that the fate of the partners is connected. In an impersonal relationship, such as with a restaurant server you don’t know, you might be able to brush off the other’s anger, affection, excitement, or depression. But in an interpersonal relationship, the other’s life affects you. • The third feature is self-disclosure. In impersonal exchanges, we reveal little about ourselves; but in interpersonal exchanges, we often share important thoughts and feelings, usually reflecting our comfort with one another. This doesn’t mean that all highly interpersonal relationships are warm and caring or that all self-disclosure is positive. It’s possible to reveal negative personal information: “I really hate when you do that!” But note you’d probably say that only to someone with whom you have an interpersonal relationship. • The fourth feature has to do with the intrinsic rewards of interacting. Communicators in relationships characterized by impersonal exchanges seek extrinsic rewards—payoffs that have little to do with the people involved. You listen to professors in class or talk to potential buyers of your used car in order to reach goals that have little to do with developing personal relationships. By contrast, you spend time in highly interpersonal relationships, such as relationships with friends and lovers, because of the intrinsic rewards that come from your communication. Just being with the other person is the reward. It doesn’t matter what you talk about—developing the relationship is what’s important. Relatively few of our interactions are highly interpersonal. The scarcity of interpersonal communication, however, contributes to its value (Mehl et al., 2010). Like precious and one-of-a-kind artwork, highly interpersonal communication is special because it is rare. It’s even fairly scarce in close relationships, where much of our daily communication is comfortably mundane (Alberts et al., 2005). Those special relationships, however, provide the best opportunities to communicate interpersonally—and that’s why Chapter 10 focuses on them.

Masspersonal Communication After reading the characteristics just outlined, you might be thinking about interpersonal communication as a private rather than a public exchange. For instance, many people would be reluctant to broadcast self-disclosures to an audience, and a relationship might not feel unique if it’s shared with hundreds of others. In this respect, it’s easy to regard interpersonal communication as something that happens only in private, one-on-one relationships. But the emergence of social media has led to some changes in that thinking. The fact is, when you post a message on a friend’s social networking page (“I heard about your new job—congratulations!”), that’s

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

PUBLIC Newspaper Television Billboard

YouTube video Podcast

Tweet Blog Facebook post Masspersonal Communication Radio call-in

Spam

Jumbotron proposal Directed tweet

Group email Listserv

PERSONAL

IMPERSONAL

Mass Communication

Interpersonal Communication

FIGURE 1.3 Examples

Tailored spam

Facebook private message

of Mass, Interpersonal, and Masspersonal Communication Adapted from O’Sullivan & Carr, 2017.

PRIVATE both personal and public. The message is meant for your friend, but others view and evaluate it. You probably have those others in mind as you craft the message—otherwise, you could have sent a private text or email. In the same vein, many blog authors and tweeters interact with their followers, creating a sense of community (Lee & Jang, 2013). Mediated messages that are broadcast one-to-many are typically categorized as “mass communication,” but that label doesn’t capture the nature of some personal messages aimed at large audiences. As a way of clarifying the personal nature of some public messages, communication scholars (O’Sullivan & Carr, 2017) suggest we need a new label. Masspersonal communication characterizes interaction that crosses boundaries between mass and interpersonal contexts. Figure 1.3 illustrates some such intersections and the channels they use. It’s easy to see how masspersonal communication can enhance a relationship’s uniqueness, interdependence, self-disclosure, and intrinsic rewards.

COMMUNICATION MISCONCEPTIONS Now that you’ve learned what communication is, it’s time to identify some things it isn’t. Avoiding these common misconceptions (adapted from McCroskey & Richmond, 1996) can save you a great deal of trouble in your personal life.

Not All Communication Seeks Understanding You might assume that the goal of all communication is to maximize understanding between communicators. But although some understanding is necessary to coordinate our interactions, there are some types of

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

communication in which understanding, as we usually conceive it, isn’t the primary goal. Consider, for example, the following: • Social rituals we enact every day. “How’s it going?” you ask. “Great,” the other person replies, even if he or she isn’t actually feeling great. The primary goal in exchanges like these is mutual acknowledgment. The unstated message is “I consider you important enough to notice.” There’s obviously no serious attempt to exchange information ( Burnard, 2003). An analysis of examples from Twitter shows how this social ritual to “keep in touch” can take place digitally as well as in person (Schandorf, 2013). • Many attempts to influence others. Most television commercials are aimed at persuading viewers to buy products, not helping viewers understand the content of the ad. In the same way, many of our attempts at persuading others don’t involve a desire for understanding, just for compliance with our wishes. • Deliberate ambiguity and deception. When you decline an unwanted invitation by saying “I can’t make it,” you probably want to create the impression that the decision is really beyond your control. (If your goal were to be perfectly clear, you might say, “I don’t want to get together. In fact, I’d rather do almost anything than accept your invitation.”) As we explain in detail in Chapter 3, people often lie or hedge their remarks precisely because they want to obscure their true thoughts and feelings.

More Communication Is Not Always Better Whereas failure to communicate effectively and often enough can certainly cause problems, excessive communication also can be a mistake. Sometimes it is simply unproductive, as when people go over the same ground again and again. There are times when talking too much actually aggravates a problem. As McCroskey and Wheeless (1976) put it, “More and more negative communication merely leads to more and more negative results” (p. 5). Even when relationships aren’t troubled, less communication may be better than more. One study found that coworkers who aren’t highly dependent on one another perform better when they don’t spend a great deal of time talking together (Barrick et al., 2007). There are even times when no interaction is the best course. When two people are angry and hurt, they may say things they don’t mean and will later regret. In such cases it’s probably best to spend time cooling off, thinking about what to say and how to say it. Chapter 8 will help you decide when and how to share feelings.

Communication Will Not Solve All Problems Sometimes even the best planned, best timed communication won’t solve a problem. For example, imagine that you ask an instructor to explain why you received a poor grade on a project you believe deserved top marks. The professor clearly outlines the reasons why you received the low grade and sticks to that position after listening thoughtfully to your protests. Has communication solved the problem? Hardly.

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

Sometimes clear communication is even the cause of problems. Suppose, for example, that a friend asks you for an honest opinion of an expensive outfit he just bought. Your clear and sincere answer, “I think it makes you look fat,” might do more harm than good. Deciding when and how to self-disclose isn’t always easy. See Chapter 3 for suggestions.

Effective Communication Is Not a Natural Ability Most people assume that communication is like breathing—that it’s something people can do without training. Although nearly everyone does manage to function passably without much formal communication training, most people operate at a level of effectiveness far below their potential. In fact, communication skills are closer to an athletic ability. Even the most inept of us can learn to be more effective with training and practice, and even the most talented need to “keep in shape.” With this in mind, it’s time to look at what’s involved in communicating more competently.

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE “What does it take to communicate better?” is probably the most important question to ask as you read this book. Answering it has been one of the leading challenges for communication scholars. Although we don’t have all the answers, research has identified a great deal of important and useful information about communication competence.

PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE Most scholars agree that communication competence is the ability to achieve goals in a manner both effective and appropriate (Spitzberg, 2000). To understand these two dimensions, consider how you might handle everyday communication challenges such as declining an unwanted invitation or asking a friend to stop an annoying behavior. In cases such as these, effective communication would get the results you want. Appropriate communication would do so in a way that, in most cases, enhances the relationship in which it occurs. You can appreciate the importance of both appropriateness and effectiveness by imagining approaches that would satisfy one of these criteria but not the other. Yelling at your restaurant server may get your meal to come quickly, but you probably wouldn’t be welcome back (and you might want to check your food before eating it). Likewise, saying “That’s fine” to your roommate when things aren’t fine might maintain the relationship but leave you frustrated. With the goal of encouraging a balance between effectiveness and appropriateness, the following paragraphs outline several important principles of communication competence.

There Is No Single “Ideal” or “Effective” Way to Communicate Your own experience shows that a variety of communication styles can be effective. Some very successful communicators are serious, whereas others use humor; some are gregarious, others are quieter; and some are more

On the TV show Hell’s Kitchen, chef Gordon Ramsay gets the job done—but often treats his staff poorly in the process. On MasterChef Junior, he demonstrates that he can be both effective and appropriate as a cooking coach. Does your communication competence change from situation to situation?

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

straightforward, while others hint diplomatically. Furthermore, a type of communication that is competent in one setting might be a colossal blunder in another, and what one person thinks is competent may seem incompetent to another (Dunleavy & Martin, 2010). The joking insults you routinely trade with a friend might offend a sensitive family member, and Saturday night’s romantic approach would be out of place at work on Monday morning. No list of rules or tips will guarantee your success as a communicator. Flexibility is especially important when members of different cultures meet. Some communication skills seem to be universal (Ruben, 1989). Every culture has rules that require speakers to behave appropriately, for example. But the definition of appropriate communication in a given situation varies considerably from one culture to another (Arasaratnam, 2007). Customs such as belching after a meal or appearing nude in public might be appropriate in some parts of the world but outrageous in others. There are also more subtle differences in competent communication. For example, qualities such as self-disclosure and straight talk may be valued in the United States but considered overly aggressive and insensitive in many Asian cultures (Zhang, 2015). You’ll read more about the many dimensions of intercultural competence in Chapter 2.

Competence Is Situational Because competent behavior varies so much from one situation and person to another, it’s a mistake to think that communication competence is a trait that a person either possesses or lacks (Spitzberg, 1991). It’s more accurate to talk about degrees or areas of competence. You and the people you know are probably quite competent in some areas and less so in others. For example, you might deal quite skillfully with peers while feeling clumsy interacting with people much older or younger, wealthier or poorer, or more or less attractive than yourself. In fact, your competence may vary from situation to situation. It’s an overgeneralization to say, in a moment of distress, “I’m a terrible communicator!” It’s more accurate to say, “I didn’t handle this situation very well, but I’m better in others.”

Competence Can Be Learned To some degree, biology is destiny when it comes to communication competence (Teven et al., 2010). Research suggests that certain personality traits predispose people toward particular competence skills (Hullman et al., 2010). For instance, those who are agreeable and conscientious by nature find it easier to be appropriate and harder to be (and become) assertive and effective. Fortunately, biology isn’t the only factor that shapes how we communicate. Communication competence is, to a great degree, a set of skills that anyone can learn (Fortney et al., 2001). For instance, people with communication anxiety often benefit from interpersonal training sessions (Dwyer, 2000). Skills instruction has also been shown to help communicators in a variety of professional fields (Brown et al., 2010; Hynes, 2012). Even

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

without systematic training, it’s possible to develop communication skills through the processes of observation and trial and error. We learn from our own successes and failures, as well as from observing other models—both positive and negative. And, of course, it’s our hope that you will become a more competent communicator as a result of putting the information in this book to work.

CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPETENT COMMUNICATION Although competent communication varies from one situation to another, scholars have identified several common denominators that characterize it in most contexts.

A Large Repertoire of Skills As you’ve already seen, good communicators don’t use the same approach in every situation. They know that sometimes it’s best to be blunt and sometimes tactful; that there is a time to speak up and a time to be quiet. The chances of reaching your personal and relational goals increase with the number of options you have about how to communicate (Pillet-Shore, 2011). For example, if you want to start a conversation with a stranger, you might get the ball rolling simply by introducing yourself. In other cases, seeking assistance might work well: “I’ve just moved here. What kind of neighborhood is the Eastside?” A third strategy is to ask a question about the situation: “I’ve never heard this band before. Do you know anything about them?” You could also offer a sincere compliment and follow it up with a question: “Great shoes! Where did you get them?” Just as a chef draws from a wide range of herbs and spices, a competent communicator can draw from a large array of potential behaviors.

Adaptability To extend this metaphor, a chef must know when to use garlic, chili, or sugar. Likewise, a competent communicator needs adaptability, selecting appropriate responses for each situation—and for each recipient. Adaptability is so important that competence researchers call it “the hallmark of interpersonal communication skills” (Hullman, 2015). As an example, one study (Stephens et al., 2009) found that professors negatively appraised students who sent emails that included casual text language (such as “4” instead of “for” or “RU” instead of “are you”). These students didn’t adapt their message to an appropriate level of professional formality. Later in this chapter, we’ll discuss how choosing the right channel for particular messages and recipients is also an important component of communication adaptability. Adaptability becomes challenging when communicating masspersonally. When you post on social media, for instance, it’s likely you have multiple audiences in mind as you craft your message (Marder et al., 2016). If you’ve edited an update before posting because you knew how some followers would react, you’ve practiced adaptability—and also self-presentation, as described in Chapter 3.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Ability to Perform Skillfully

Media Clip

Once you have chosen the appropriate way to communicate, you have to perform that behavior effectively (Barge & Little, 2008). In communication, as in other activities, practice is the key to skillful performance. Much of the information in Interplay will introduce you to new tools for communicating, and the activities at the end of each chapter will help you practice them.

Empathy/Perspective Taking We develop the most effective messages when we understand and empathize with the other person’s point of view (Nelson et al., 2017). Empathy, or perspective taking (explained in Chapter 4), is an essential skill partly because others may not express their thoughts and feelings clearly. And of course, it’s not enough just to imagine another’s perspective; it’s vital to communicate that understanding through verbal and nonverbal responses (Kellas et al., 2013).

Pathologically Competent: House of Cards In the TV series House of Cards, career politician Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) and his equally ambitious wife Claire (Robin Wright) are ruthless in their pursuit of power. They make friends, curry favor, and use people to further their own positions. In terms of communication competence, Claire and Frank are very effective in achieving their personal goals. They are strategic self-monitors, carefully noting how others respond to them and adjusting accordingly. But interpersonally, they regard other people only as tools to achieve their selfish goals, or as enemies to be defeated. Not surprisingly, the Underwoods have no close relationships. In an aside to the camera, Frank says: “For those of us climbing to the top of the food chain, there can be no mercy. There is but one rule: Hunt or be hunted.” Most of us would regard Frank and Claire’s heartless obsession with power as pathological. We recognize that to be fully competent communicators—and healthy human beings—it’s necessary to be both effective and appropriate.

Cognitive Complexity Cognitive complexity is the ability to construct a variety of different frameworks for viewing an issue. Imagine that a longtime friend never responded to a message from you, but you expected a response. One possible explanation is that your friend is offended by something you’ve done. Another possibility is that something has happened in another part of your friend’s life that is upsetting. Or perhaps nothing at all is wrong, and you’re just being overly sensitive. Researchers have found that a large number of constructs for interpreting the behavior of others leads to greater “conversational sensitivity,” increasing the chances of acting in ways that will produce satisfying results (Burleson, 2011; MacGeorge & Wilkum, 2012). Not surprisingly, research also shows a connection between cognitive complexity and empathy (Joireman, 2004). The relationship makes sense: The more ways you have to understand others and interpret their behaviors, the greater the likelihood that you can see and communicate about the world from their perspective.

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

Self-Monitoring Psychologists use the term self-monitoring to describe the process of paying close attention to one’s own behavior and using these observations to shape it. Self-monitors are able to consider their behavior from a detached viewpoint, allowing for observations such as: “I’m making a fool out of myself.” “I’d better speak up now.” “This approach is working well. I’ll keep it up.” It’s no surprise that self-monitoring generally increases one’s effectiveness as a communicator (Day et al., 2002). The President’s Council of Economic Advisers maintains that greater “self-awareness, self-monitoring, and self-control” will help students be more successful when they enter the job market (Executive Office of the President, 2009, p. 10). The ability to ask “How am I doing?”—and to change your behavior if the answer isn’t positive—is a tremendous asset for communicators.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION Until a few decades ago, face-to-face communication was essential to starting and maintaining most, if not all, interpersonal relationships. Other channels existed—primarily the telephone and postal c orrespondence— but most interpersonal communication seemed to require physical proximity. Now things are different. Obviously, face-to-face communication is still vitally important, but now technology also plays a key role in starting and maintaining relationships. Social media is the term that describes all the communication channels that allow communitybased input, interaction, content sharing, and collaboration. Defined broadly, you’re using social media when you send text messages, post a tweet, exchange emails and instant messages, or use social networking sites such as Facebook and Instagram. The number of social media technologies has exploded in the past few decades, giving communicators today an array of choices that would have amazed someone from a previous era. Before reading about the characteristics of social media, take a moment to analyze the role of digital communication in your life by completing the assessment on page 24.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL MEDIA In many ways, mediated and face-to-face communication are similar. They involve messages, channels, noise, and other elements of the transactional model. Both are used to satisfy the physical, identity, social, and practical needs outlined on pages 5–9.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

A S S E S S I N G YO U R CO M M U N I C AT I O N

Your Use of Social Media Respond to each of the 15 items below according to how closely it describes you, using a scale from 1 through 8, with 1 = “not at all descriptive of me,” and 8 = “highly descriptive of me.”

_____

1. I prefer online social interaction over face-to-face communication.

_____ 2. Online social interaction is more comfortable for me than face-to-face interaction. _____ 3. I prefer communicating with people online rather than face to face. _____ 4. I have used the internet to talk with others when I was feeling isolated. _____ 5. I have used the internet to make myself feel better when I was down. _____ 6. I have used the internet to make myself feel better when I’ve felt upset. _____

7. When I haven’t been online for some time, I become preoccupied with the thought of going online.

_____ 8. I would feel lost if I were unable to go online. _____

9. I think obsessively about going online when I am ofﬂine.

_____ 10. I have difficulty controlling the amount of time I spend online. _____ 11. I find it difficult to control my internet use. _____ 12. When offline, I have a hard time trying to resist the urge to go online. _____ 13. My internet use has made it difficult for me to manage my life. _____ 14. I have missed social engagements or activities because of my internet use. _____ 15. My internet use has created problems in my life. Source: Caplan, S. E. (2010). Theory and measurement of generalized problematic Internet use: A two-step approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1089–1097.

For scoring information, see page 35 at the end of the chapter.

Despite these similarities, communication by social media differs from the in-person variety in some important ways. Table 1.1 provides an overview of differences by communication channel. It shows that each channel has both advantages and drawbacks. You can boost your effectiveness by choosing the channel that’s right for each situation. Should you send a message via a text? Make a phone call? Wait for a chance to talk in person? It depends on the nature of the message, the receiver, and the situation.

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

TABLE 1.1

Characteristics of Communication Channels Synchronization

Richness/Leanness

Permanence

Face-to-Face

Synchronous

Rich

Low

Video Chat

Synchronous

Moderately rich

Low

Telephone

Synchronous

Moderately lean (voice but no visuals)

Low

Voice Mail

Asynchronous

Moderately lean (voice but no visuals)

Moderate (can be stored; typically deleted)

Text/Instant Messaging

Asynchronous (but potentially quick)

Lean

Moderate (can be stored; typically deleted; some self-erase)

Asynchronous

Lean

High (often stored; often shared with others)

Social Networking Sites

Typically asynchronous

Lean (but can include photos, videos)

High (and very public)

Leanness Social scientists use the term richness to describe the abundance of nonverbal cues that add clarity to a verbal message (Otondo et al., 2008). Conversely, leanness describes messages that carry less information due to a lack of nonverbal cues. As you’ll read in Chapter 6, face-to-face communication abounds with nonverbal messages that give communicators information about the meanings of one another’s words. By comparison, most social media are much leaner. (See Figure 1.4.) To appreciate how message leanness varies by medium, imagine you haven’t heard from a friend in several weeks and you decide to ask, “Is anything wrong?” Your friend replies, “No, I’m fine.” Would that response be more or less descriptive depending on whether you received it via text message, over the phone, or in person? You almost certainly would be able to tell a great deal more from a face-to-face response because it would contain a richer array of cues, such

Channel Examples

Text

Voice

Audio-Visual

In-Person

Email, texting, letters, online posts

Phone calls, voice mail

Video conferencing, Skyping, FaceTime

Face-to-face interaction

Leaner

Richer

FIGURE 1.4 Leanness– Richness Spectrum of Communication Channels

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

as facial expressions and vocal tone. By contrast, a text message is lean because it contains only words. A voice message—containing vocal cues but no visual ones—would probably fall somewhere in between. Because most mediated messages are leaner than the face-to-face variety, they can be harder to interpret with confidence. Irony and attempts at humor can easily be misunderstood, so as a receiver it’s important to clarify your interpretations before jumping to conclusions. Adding phrases such as “just kidding” or an emoji like can help your lean messages become richer, but your sincerity could still be interpreted as sarcasm. As a sender, think about how to send unambiguous messages so you aren’t misunderstood. The leanness of social media messages presents another challenge. Without nonverbal cues, online communicators can create idealized—and sometimes unrealistic—images of one another. As you’ll read in Chapters 3 and 6, the absence of nonverbal cues allows communicators to manage their identities carefully. After all, it’s a world without bad breath, unsightly blemishes, or stammering responses. Such conditions encourage participants to engage in what Joseph Walther (2007) calls hyperpersonal communication, accelerating the discussion of personal topics and relational development beyond what normally happens in face-to-face interaction. Research shows that online communicators self-disclose at higher rates and share more emotions than they would in person, often leading to a hastened (and perhaps premature) sense of relational intimacy (Jiang et al., 2011). This accelerated disclosure may explain why communicators who meet online sometimes have difficulty shifting to a face-to-face relationship (McEwan & Zanolla, 2013). It’s important to remember that richer doesn’t always mean better. There are times when a lean message is the best route to take. Maybe you don’t want the other person to hear the quiver in your voice, see the sweat on your forehead, or notice the clothing you’re wearing. Moreover, lean messages communicate less information about communicators’ personal features. One study found that the text-only format of most online messages can bring people closer by minimizing the perception of differences due to gender, social class, race or ethnicity, and age (Rains & Tsetsi, 2017). When you want people to focus on what you’re saying rather than your appearance, leaner communication can be advantageous.

Asynchronicity

Comedian Aziz Ansari notes that younger people are typically averse to synchronous phone conversations. Which communication channels do you prefer? Why?

As you read earlier, asynchronous communication occurs when there’s a time gap between when a message is sent and when it’s received. By contrast, synchronous communication is two-way and occurs in real time. In-person communication is synchronous, as are phone conversations and communication via video tools such as FaceTime and Skype. By contrast, email and voice mail messages are asynchronous. So are “snail mail” letters, tweets, and text messages.

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

The asynchronous nature of most mediated messages makes them fundamentally different from synchronous communication. Most obviously, asynchronous messages give you the choice of not responding at all: You can ignore most problematic text messages without much fallout. That isn’t a good option if the person who wants an answer gets you on the phone or confronts you in person. Even if you want to respond, asynchronous media give you the chance to edit your reply. You can mull over different wording, or even ask others for advice about what to say. On the other hand, delaying a response to an asynchronous message can send a message of its own, intentionally or not (“I wonder why she hasn’t texted me back?”).

Permanence What happens in a face-to-face conversation is transitory. By contrast, text and video can be stored indefinitely and forwarded to others. The

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Sidestepping Permanence: The Attraction of Snapchat Most of your emails, text messages, and posts are permanent and can be archived. But some instant messaging services are ephemeral—that is, their messages disappear after a short period of time. Scholars want to know more about the most popular ephemeral platform: Snapchat. Joseph Bayer and his research team conducted surveys and in-depth interviews with Snapchat users. They concluded that Snapchat is a “lightweight channel” for sharing spontaneous experiences with friends and family. Snapchatters feel free to express themselves without worrying how their messages look and sound, because they know those messages will disappear. As a result, the respondents said that Snapchat is more enjoyable and puts them in a more positive mood than other digital platforms. A study by Sonja Utz and her colleagues painted a less rosy picture of ephemeral messaging. Respondents said that, compared with their Facebook posting, they were more likely to use Snapchat for “flirting and finding new love interests.” As a result, Snapchat elicits more partner jealousy than does Facebook. About half the respondents said

they had sent drunk photos via Snapchat—and between 13 percent and 20 percent admitted sending snaps involving sexting or “legally questionable activities.” One theme held true across both studies: The ephemeral nature of Snapchat affords less inhibited communication than occurs through more permanent channels.

Bayer, J. B., Ellison, N. B., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Falk, E. B. (2016). Sharing the small m oments: Ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society, 19, 956–977. Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: A comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 141–146.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

permanence of digital messages can be a plus (Ozkul & Humphreys, 2015). For instance, you can save and share the smartphone photos of your oncein-a-lifetime encounter with a celebrity. And if your boss emails you saying it’s okay to come in late on Monday morning, you’re covered if she later complains about your tardy arrival. There can also be a downside to the enduring nature of digital messages. It’s bad enough to blurt out a private thought or lash out in person, but at least there’s no permanent record of your indiscretion. By contrast, a regrettable text message, email, or web posting can be archived virtually forever. Even worse, it can be retrieved and forwarded in nightmarish ways. The best advice, then, is to take the same approach with mediated messages that you do in person: Think twice before saying something you might later regret. As one writer put it, “Old email never dies” (Bennehum, 2005). Some mediated platforms are designed to thwart message permanence. Snapchat is the most popular of these time-limited instant messaging services (Piwek & Joinson, 2016), with content typically disappearing within 10 seconds. The Focus on Research sidebar in this section describes why communicators opt for Snapchat in some of their interpersonal exchanges.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND RELATIONAL QUALITY

Always being connected extends social networks, but the downside can be a lack of quality face time. What are the pros and cons of your social media use?

At first glance, social media might seem inferior to face-to-face interaction. As you’ve already read, it lacks the rich array of nonverbal cues that are available in person. One observer put it this way: “Email is a way to stay in touch, but you can’t share a coffee or a beer with somebody on email or give them a hug” (Nie & Erbring, 2000, p. 19). It’s no surprise that researchers have found a connection between relational satisfaction and the use of rich communication channels (Goodman-Deane et al., 2016), particularly meeting with others in person. “Cyberpessimists” argue that there’s a dark side to relying on mediated channels (for a review, see DeAndrea et al., 2010). Some critics describe how the almost hypnotic attraction of an internet connection discourages a sense of community (e.g., Putnam, 2000). Others claim that the “always on” nature of today’s communication technology leads to more superficial relationships (Turkle, 2011, 2015). One study found that the mere presence of mobile devices can have a negative effect on closeness, connection, and conversation quality during face-to-face discussions of personal topics (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013; see also Allred & Crowley, 2017). That’s

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

why some groups begin business meetings or social events by depositing their cell phones at the door, so as not to disrupt their in-person interaction. Despite these legitimate concerns, research also suggests that communicating and relating via social media can be satisfying (Walther & Ramirez, 2010). One survey revealed that social networking sites usually don’t replace offline relationships as much as enhance and extend them (Kujath, 2011). Here are some research findings supporting the value of communicating via digital media: • Social networking sites provide the opportunity to develop and maintain social connectedness, and that connectedness is associated with lower depression and anxiety and greater life satisfaction (Grieve etal., 2013). • Participants who have both in-person and digital contact with friends are less lonely than their counterparts who have fewer ways of keeping in touch (Baiocco et al., 2011). • College students use social media and smartphones to help meet their need to belong to a group (Yonghwan et al., 2016). • Dating couples report that staying in touch throughout the day via texting and social media helps build relational intimacy—even if the conversation is only about routine and mundane topics (Boyle & O’Sullivan, 2016). There are several reasons why mediated channels can increase both the amount and quality of interpersonal communication (Barnes, 2003). For one thing, they make communication easier. Busy schedules and long distances can make face-to-face contact difficult or impossible. The challenge of finding time is especially tough for people who are separated by long distances and multiple time zones (Dainton & Aylor, 2002). In relationships like this, the asynchronous nature of most social media provides a way to share information. And as you read earlier, lean messages can strip away some of the factors that complicate interpersonal communication. That’s why internet experts call social media tools “low-friction opportunities” to create, maintain, and rediscover social ties in our lives (Anderson, 2010). Findings such as these help explain why Steve Jobs, the cofounder of Apple Computer, suggested that personal computers be renamed “interpersonal computers.”

COMMUNICATING COMPETENTLY WITH SOCIAL MEDIA Like face-to-face communication, mediated interaction can seem natural and almost effortless. But despite its apparent ease, there’s potential for trouble unless you proceed mindfully. The following guidelines will help.

Be Careful What You Post A quick scan of social networking home pages shows that many users post text and images about themselves that could prove embarrassing in some contexts: “Here I am just before my DUI arrest”; “This is me in Cancun on spring break.” This is not the sort of information most people would be eager to show a prospective employer or certain family members.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

As a cautionary tale about how your digital blunders can haunt you, consider the case of Kevin Colvin, a young intern at a Boston bank. He emailed his boss to say “something came up at home” and he would need to miss a few days of work. But his boss searched Facebook and discovered a photo showing that Kevin was actually attending an out-of-town Halloween party, where he was in a fairy costume, complete with wings and wand. Kevin found that his indiscretion was not a brilliant career move. (To see the photo and read the boss’s reaction, type the words “Kevin” and “cool wand” into your browser.) Some incautious posts can go beyond being simply amusing. One example is the practice of “sexting”—sharing explicit photos of one’s self or others via mediated channels. One survey revealed that a third of the respondents had sent a sexting image while in high school using a cell phone (MartinezPrather & Vandiver, 2014). In another study, nearly two-thirds of the more than 1,600 college freshmen surveyed said they had sent sexually suggestive texts or photos (Winkelman et al., 2014). Even more disturbing, 31 percent shared these private communications with a third party. The impulsive message or post that seems harmless at the time can haunt you for a lifetime.

Be Considerate The word etiquette calls to mind old-fashioned rules. But whatever you call them, mostly unspoken rules of conduct still keep society running smoothly. Communication by social media calls for its own rules and competencies (Tolman, 2011), which some refer to as netiquette. Here are a few. Respect Others’ Need for Undivided Attention You might not realize

that some people are insulted when you divide your attention between your in-person conversational partner and distant contacts. As one observer put it, “While a quick log-on may seem, to the user, a harmless break, others in the room receive it as a silent dismissal. It announces: ‘I’m not interested’” (Bauerlein, 2009). In Chapter 7, we have plenty to say about the challenges of listening effectively when you are multitasking. Even if you think you can understand others while dealing with communication media, it’s important to realize that they may perceive you as being rude. Keep Your Tone CivilIf you’ve ever posted a snide

comment on a blog, shot back a nasty reply to a text or instant message, or forwarded an embarrassing email, you know that it’s easier to behave badly when the target of your message isn’t right in front of you. (See the Watch and Discuss video in this section.) And it’s even easier to be nasty when your comments are posted anonymously (Rowe, 2015). The tendency to transmit messages without considering their consequences is called

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

disinhibition, and research shows it is more likely in mediated channels than in face-to-face contact (Casale et al., 2015; Hollenbaugh & Everett, 2013). Sometimes communicators take disinhibition to the extreme, blasting off angry—even vicious—emails, text messages, and blog posts. The common term for these outbursts is flaming (Hmielowski et al., 2014). In text-based forms of social media, flaming includes profanity, allcapital letters, excessive exclamation points, and question marks. Here is the account of one writer who was the target of an obscenity-filled email: No one had ever said something like this to me before, and no one could have said this to me before: In any other medium, these words would be, literally, unspeakable. The guy couldn’t have said this to me on the phone, because I would have hung up and not answered if the phone rang again, and he couldn’t have said it to my face, because I wouldn’t have let him finish. . . . I suppose the guy could have written me a nasty letter: He probably wouldn’t have used the word “rectum,” though, and he probably wouldn’t have mailed the letter; he would have thought twice while he was addressing the envelope. But the nature of email is that you don’t think twice. You write and send. (Seabrook, 1994, p. 71)

In some online communities, flaming is part of the culture, and is a way to instruct or correct a member who has misstated facts or abused the group’s rules. But in most contexts, it’s hard to find a justification for flaming. Flaming isn’t the only type of mediated harassment. Cyberbullying has become a widespread phenomenon, often with dire consequences (Holfeld & Grabe, 2012). More than 4 in 10 teens report being the target of online harassment—and the problem is international in scope (Huang & Chou, 2010). Targets of cyberbullying often feel helpless and scared, to such a degree that they are eight times more likely to carry a weapon to school than other students. Several cases have been reported in the United States in which victims of cyberbullying took their own lives (Baumanet al., 2013), which is sobering in light of reports that 81 percent of cyberbullies admit their only reason for bullying is because “it’s funny” (National Crime Prevention Council, 2007). See the Dark Side box in Chapter 12 for more discussion of this serious problem. One way to behave better in asynchronous situations is to ask yourself a simple question before you send, post, or broadcast: Would you deliver the same message to the recipient in person? If your answer is no, then you might want to think twice before sending. Be Mindful of Bystanders Sometimes the use of communication tech-

nology annoys others in public spaces. For example, you might have encountered restaurant patrons whose phone voices intruded on your conversation, pedestrians who bumped into you because they were looking at their phones, or store customers talking on their phones while holding up a checkout line. If this sort of behavior doesn’t bother you, it can be hard to feel sympathetic with others who are offended by it. Nonetheless, this is a situation in which the “platinum rule” applies: Consider treating others the way they would like to be treated.

Watch and Discuss Look up and watch “Men Read Mean Tweets to Female Sports Reporters.” 1) Consider the roles of leanness and disinhibition in Twitter communication. 2) Discuss guidelines for civil use of social media.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Balance Mediated and Face Time Being connected 24/7 can steal time

from in-person communication, but research supports the continuing importance of face time (Vitak et al., 2011). In fact, in-person (as opposed to online) interaction is a larger contributor to longevity and happiness than either diet or exercise (Pinker, 2014). Overuse of social media can range from slightly abnormal to borderline obsessive. For instance, online gaming—especially intensive role-playing games—can decrease the relational satisfaction of marriage partners (A hlstrom et al., 2012). And as noted in the Dark Side box on p. 7, overuse of online communication (to the exclusion of the in-person variety) can lead to loneliness and other negative consequences (Kuss et al., 2013). So what is the happy medium? There’s no simple answer, but there are a couple of tests to keep in mind. If your loved ones hint—or directly tell you—that they would like more face time with you, it’s probably wise to heed their request. And if you find that technological devices are subtracting from, rather than adding to, your interpersonal relationships, it might be time to monitor and limit your use of social media.

Embrace Multimodality Each of us has preferred modes of communication. Sometimes age plays a role in those preferences. For instance, younger people generally prefer texting to phone conversations (Hyman, 2014), often viewing the latter as annoying and even intrusive (Anderson, 2015). And younger communicators are more likely than older ones to use social networking sites, although the gap isn’t as large as it used to be (Smith, 2014). But relying on one or two modes of communication to the exclusion of others may cut off interactions with those who don’t share your channel preferences. You no doubt have heard or said, “Why didn’t you respond to my (text, e-message, voicemail, post)?” only to have the other person say, “Oh, I rarely check that.” That’s why communication scholars endorse multimodality: the ability and willingness to use multiple channels of communication (Chan, 2015). To return to an analogy from our discussion of competence, multimodal communicators are like talented chefs who use a variety of spices rather than just salt to season their dishes. In a study of communication practices among first-year college students, a research team found that the respondents embraced multimodality (Morreale et al., 2015). The surveyed students said they typically text with friends, phone their families, and use email when contacting instructors. They also said they would break up with a romantic partner in person rather than through digital media, and that they generally prefer face-toface over mediated communication. It’s wise to analyze your audience and adapt to their channel preferences before communicating. In your analysis, consider not only d emographic variables such as age, but also message content. As a rule of thumb, more serious and complex topics demand richer channels, such as face-to-face communication (Eden & Veksler, 2016). Texting and instant messaging are fine for updates and making plans, but personal and substantive conversations are best handled in person, or at least over the phone.

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

And remember that most mediated communication in the workplace still takes place via email, phone, and voicemail (Giang, 2013; Wayne, 2014). Attempting to communicate professionally via texting or social media could be a breach of professional etiquette.

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING Objective 1.1 Recognize the needs that communication satisfies.

Communication is important for a variety of reasons. Besides satisfying practical needs, meaningful communication contributes to physical health, plays a major role in defining our identity, and forms the basis for our social relationships. Q: Using a representative two-day period, identify the needs you try to satisfy by communicating. How could you better meet those needs by improving your communication skills?

Objective 1.2 Explain the interpersonal communication process: its transactional nature, governing principles, and characteristics.

Communication is a complex process. The transactional model presented in this chapter shows that meanings are determined by the people who exchange messages, not in the messages themselves. Interpersonal communicators usually send and receive messages simultaneously, particularly in faceto-face exchanges. Environment and noise affect the nature of interaction, as do the channels used to exchange messages. Communication follows several principles. For instance, it is transactional, irreversible, and unrepeatable, and it can be intentional or unintentional. Messages also have both content and relational dimensions. Communication in interpersonal relationships is distinguished by uniqueness, interdependence, disclosure, and intrinsic rewards.

Interpersonal communication is best understood in contrast to impersonal communication. To understand the communication process, it is important to recognize and avoid several common misconceptions. More communication is not always better. Sometimes total understanding isn’t as important as we might think. Even at its best, communication is not a panacea that will solve every problem. Effective communication is not a natural ability. Although some people have greater aptitude at communicating, everyone can learn to interact with others more competently. Q: Apply the transactional model to a situation that illustrates the qualities of interpersonal communication described on pages 15–16.

Objective 1.3 Identify characteristics

of effective communication and competent communicators. Communication competency is the ability to be both effective and appropriate. There is no single ideal way to communicate. Flexibility and adaptability are characteristics of competent communicators, as are skill at performing behaviors, empathy and perspective taking, cognitive complexity, and self-monitoring. The good news is, communication competency can be learned. Q: Identify interpersonal situations in which you communicate competently and those in which your competence is less than satisfactory. (Consider inviting people who know you well to help with this process.) Based on these observations, identify goals for improving your interpersonal communication skills.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Objective 1.4 Describe the advantages and drawbacks of various social media communication channels in relation to faceto-face communication.

Social media differ from the face-to-face variety in several noteworthy ways: They are typically leaner, often asynchronous, and can be permanent. Social media do pose risks for relationships; but

when used mindfully, they can enhance them. This chapter offers several guidelines for using social media with due caution and consideration. Q: Evaluate the optimal level of social media use in your relationships. What are some ways you can increase your competence level when using social media?

KEY TERMS Asynchronous communication (26) Channel (12) Cognitive complexity (22) Communication (9) Communication competence (19) Content dimension (of a message) (14) Disinhibition (31) Environment (11)

Feedback (10) Hyperpersonal communication (26) Interpersonal communication (15) Leanness (25) Masspersonal communication (17) Mediated communication (12) Multimodality (32)

Noise (external, physiological, and psychological) (11) Relational dimension (of a message) (14) Richness (25) Self-monitoring (23) Social media (23) Synchronous communication (26) Transactional communication (10)

ACTIVITIES 1. As you read in this chapter, communication satisfies a variety of physical, identity, and social needs. With a group of classmates, evaluate how well social media enable you to address those needs compared with face-to-face communication.

people who know you well: a family member, friend, or fellow worker, for example. Interview different people to determine if you are more competent in some relationships than others, or in some situations than others.

2. Select three important relationships in your life. a. Describe the characteristics of competent These might include your relationships with people communicators outlined in this chapter. at work or school, or with friends and family. For Be sure your interviewee understands each each relationship, rate on a scale ranging from 1 of them. to 10 (with 1 = low and 10 = high) the degree to b. Ask your interviewee to rate you on each of the which the relationship is characterized by each of observable qualities. (It won’t be possible for these four factors: uniqueness, interdependence, self- others to evaluate internal characteristics, such disclosure, and intrinsic rewards. Share your analysis as cognitive complexity and self-monitoring.) Be with a classmate and discuss what these factors say sure this evaluation reflects your communication about the interpersonal nature of your relationships. in a variety of situations: It’s likely you aren’t 3. How competent are you as a communicator? You uniformly competent—or incompetent—in all can begin to answer this question by interviewing of them.

CH A PT ER 1 I N T ERPERS O N A L PRO CES S

c. If your rating is not high in one or more areas, discuss with your partner how you could raise it.

4. Knowing how you want to communicate isn’t the same as being able to perform competently. The technique of behavior rehearsal provides a way to improve a particular communication skill before you use it in real life. Behavior rehearsal consists of four steps: a. Define your goal. Begin by identifying the way you want to behave.

behaviors: Work on only one subskill at a time, and start with easy situations. Don’t expect yourself suddenly to behave flawlessly in the most challenging situations. Begin by practicing your new skills in situations in which you have a chance of success.

5. Construct a diary of the ways you use social media in a three-day period. For each instance when you use social media (email, social networking website, phone, Twitter, etc.), describe

b. On your own or with the help of classmates, break the goal into the behaviors it involves. Most goals are made up of several verbal and nonverbal parts. You may be able to identify these parts by thinking about them yourself, by observing others, by reading about them, or by asking others for advice.

a. The kind(s) of social media you use

c. Practice each behavior before using it in real life. First, imagine yourself behaving more competently. Next, practice a new behavior by rehearsing it with others.

Share your findings with your classmates. Describe the types of media you use most often and why you chose them. Do you think some of your messages could have been more effective if you had used a different medium? Are you a multimodal communicator, or do you tend to prefer one communication medium over others?

d. Try out the behavior in real life. You can increase the odds of success if you follow two pieces of advice when trying out new communication

b. The nature of the communication (e.g., “Wrote on friend’s Facebook wall,” “Texted roommate to pick up dinner on the way home”) c. The reason you chose that medium for that particular message

SCORING FOR ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION (PAGE 24)

Add your responses to 1 through 15. The total is your “Generalized Problematic Internet Use” score—a measure of how social media may have negative outcomes for you. The average person scores about 33, within a possible range of 15 to 120. Did you score higher or lower? A score of 69 or higher may indicate problematic use. As you consider your score, think about the role social media play in your relationships: Are you more interested in interacting with friends via social media than in person? Do you go online to feel better? Do you find your internet use interfering with other activities? Strive for balance in integrating social media into your life.

2 Culture and Interpersonal Communication LEARNING OBJECTIVES

CHAPTER OUTLINE

2.1

Culture and Communication 38

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Explain the relationship between intercultural and interpersonal dimensions of communication. Describe five key values that help shape a culture’s communication norms. Recognize the range of co-cultures in today’s society and how co-cultural factors can affect interpersonal communication. Explain the factors that shape a culture’s verbal and nonverbal codes. Identify the attitudes, knowledge, and skills required for intercultural communication competence.

FEATURES Media Clip: Embracing Tradition and Change: Meet the Patels 39 Media Clip: Straddling Cultures: black-ish 49 Dark Side of Communication: When “Harmless” Labels Do Harm 50 At Work: Organizations Are Cultures 55 Focus on Research: Saying “I’m Sorry” in Japanese and English: Different Codes 58 Assessing Your Communication: What Is Your Intercultural Communication Competence? 60 Watch and Discuss: “Momondo: The DNA Journey” 62 Focus on Research: Living in Another Culture: Adapting and Adopting 63

• Culture and Co-Culture 38 • Intercultural Communication 40 • Interpersonal and Intercultural Dimensions of Communication 42 • Intercultural Differences as Generalizations 43

Cultural Values and Norms 43 • High Versus Low Context 43 • Individualism Versus Collectivism 44 • Power Distance 46 • Uncertainty Avoidance 47 • Achievement Versus Nurturing 48

Co-Cultures and Communication 48 • Race and Ethnicity 48 • Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation 50 • Age/Generation 51 • (Dis)abilities 52 • Socioeconomic Status 53

Codes and Culture 54 • Verbal Codes 54 • Nonverbal Codes 58

Developing Intercultural Communication Competence 59 • Motivation and Attitude 60 • Tolerance for Ambiguity 61 • Open-Mindedness 61 • Knowledge and Skill 62 • Patience and Perseverance 63 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 64 KEY TERMS 65 ACTIVITIES 66

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

ORE THAN A HALF-CENTURY AGO, theorist Marshall McLuhan (1962) coined the metaphor of the world as a “global village,” in which communication technology connects members of every nation. McLuhan suggested that, just like in a traditional village, our affairs are intertwined—for better or worse. This analysis has proven to be increasingly accurate. Thanks to the growth in communication technology, commerce has changed in ways that would have been unimaginable just a generation ago. International telephone service is affordable and efficient. The internet allows users around the world to share information with one another instantaneously, and members of global organizations can meet in virtual teams. Beyond technology, demographic changes are transforming our society. Countries such as the United States are in some ways microcosms of the global village, in that immigration has made society more multicultural and multiethnic than ever before (see Figure 2.1). In this chapter, we explore how interpersonal communication operates in a networked world where members of different cultures interact.

CULTURE AND COMMUNICATION Before going any further, we need to clarify two important concepts: culture and intercultural communication. We also need to explain how intercultural and interpersonal dimensions interact.

CULTURE AND CO-CULTURE Share of Total Immigrant Population

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010 2015

Europe

Africa

Americas

Asia

Oceania

Not Reported

FIGURE 2.1 U.S. Immigrant Population by World Region of Birth, 1960–2015 Data from Migration Policy Institute, 2015

Defining culture isn’t an easy task, as scholars acknowledge (Faulkner et al., 2006). For our purposes, Larry Samovar and his colleagues (2007) offer a clear and comprehensive definition of culture: “the language, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs people share and learn.” This definition shows that culture is, to a great extent, a matter of perception and definition. When you identify yourself as a member of a culture, you must (a) recognize yourself and others as sharing certain characteristics and (b) see others who don’t possess these characteristics as members of different categories. For example, eye color doesn’t seem like a significant factor in distinguishing “us” from “them,” whereas skin color has come to play a more important role in society, at least in some cases. But it’s not hard to imagine a society where the opposite is true (look up Jane Elliott’s famous “blue-eye/brown-eye” experiment).

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

Social scientists use the label in-groups to describe groups with whom we identify and out-groups to describe those we view as different (Caughron etal., 2013). Cultural membership contributes to every person’s social identity—the part of the self-concept that is based on membership in groups. Your answer to the question “Who are you?” might include social categories such as your ethnicity and nationality. Social scientists use the term co-culture to describe the perception of membership in a group that is part of an encompassing culture (Fox & Warber, 2015; Orbe & Spellers, 2005). Co-cultures in North American society include categories based on a number of factors, including • age (e.g., teens, senior citizens) • race/ethnicity (e.g., African American, Latino) • sexual orientation (e.g., LGBTQ, straight) • nationality (e.g., immigrants or expatriates from particular countries) • geographic region (e.g., Southerners, Midwesterners) • physical disability (e.g., wheelchair users, persons who are blind) • religion (e.g., Mormon, Muslim) • activity (e.g., biker, gamer) Members of co-cultures develop unique patterns of communication and connection. Deaf culture is a good example: The shared experiences of deafness can create strong bonds, and signing offers a shared language. There are Deaf schools, Deaf competitions (e.g., Miss Deaf America), Deaf performing arts (including Deaf comedians), and other organizations that bring Deaf people together. Of course, the connection experienced by members of this co-culture can create challenges when communicating with those outside the group—for instance, between Deaf children and their hearing parents (Miller, 2010).

Media Clip

Embracing Tradition and Change: Meet the Patels It’s time for 29-year-old Ravi Patel to get married. At least that’s what his parents think, as they make clear throughout Meet the Patels. Filmed by his sister, Geeta, this warmhearted documentary chronicles Ravi’s attempts to find an Indian bride—for his own sake, and also to please his mother, father, and the extended Patel family. Ravi has good reason to follow in his parents’ footsteps. They’ve been happily married for more than 30 years, and an arranged Indian marriage certainly worked for them. Unbeknownst to his mother and father, Ravi had been dating a non-Indian woman for two years. With that relationship ended, he makes a 12-month commitment to follow the traditional practice of Indian matchmaking. His search includes a visit to the Patels’ ancestral hometown in India and a whirlwind North American dating tour. His parents are involved every step of the way, making suggestions, offering pep talks, and vetting candidates. In his search for a soulmate, Ravi struggles to embrace his heritage while living as a millennial in 21st-century America. His journey is made more bearable thanks to a healthy sense of humor, familial love, and mutual respect.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Regional co-cultures also have distinctive communication patterns. Researchers have uncovered significant state-by-state variations (Rentfrow, 2014), reporting that the country broke down into three macro regions: New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, which the researchers termed “temperamental and uninhibited”; the South and Midwest, which were labeled “friendly and conventional”; and the West Coast, Rocky Mountains, and Sun Belt, described as “relaxed and creative.” (Kluger & Wilson, 2013)

And true to an enduring stereotype, people from New York City are typically more assertive than those from the Upper Midwest (Sigler et al., 2008). Given these differences, a first-year college student from Iowa might regard a new roommate from “The Big Apple” as pushy and unpredictable, while the Northeasterner might view the Midwesterner as placid and unadventurous. Membership in co-cultures can be a source of enrichment and pride. But there are often tensions between identifying with one group and fitting into the culture at large. For example, focus groups revealed that African American students in predominantly white universities struggled to be proud of their cultural heritage while also trying to adapt to the “whiteness of their schools” (Simmons et al., 2013). On one hand, they wanted to share cultural insights with white students, but they were reluctant to call attention to themselves. In addition, members of some co-cultural groups face exclusion and discrimination related to this identity. For instance, Patrice Buzzanell (1999) describes how members of underrepresented groups are disadvantaged in employment interviews, where the rules are established by the dominant culture. Studies of Jamaican children (Ferguson & Cramer, 2007) and Latino children (Golash-Boza & Darity, 2008) indicate that skin color influences self-identification and self-esteem. In other cases, co-cultures voluntarily embrace the chance to distinguish themselves from society at large—such as teens creating slang that only their in-group understands. Some scholars (e.g., Kimmel, 2008; Wood, 2013) have even characterized men and women as belonging to different co-cultures because their communication styles are distinct. As you read this chapter, you will notice that many of the communication challenges that arise between members of different cultures also operate when people from different co-cultures interact. In today’s connected world, communication between members of different cultures and co-cultures is common. What intercultural encounters do you experience? What challenges and rewards have such encounters provided?

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION Having defined culture, we can go on to define intercultural communication as the process that occurs when members of two or more cultures or cocultures exchange messages in a manner that is influenced by their different cultural perceptions and symbol systems, both verbal and nonverbal (Samovar et al., 2007).

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

Because all of us belong to many groups (e.g., ethnic, economic, interest-based, age-related), you might be asking yourself whether there is any communication that isn’t intercultural, or at least co-cultural. The answer to this question is “yes” for two reasons. First, even in an increasingly diverse world, there are still plenty of relationships in which people share a basic common background. Within co-cultural groups such as Irish marchers in a St. Patrick’s Day parade, suburban-bred men who play poker on Fridays, and a college sorority or fraternity, members are likely to share fundamentally similar personal histories and, therefore, have similar norms, customs, and values. Second, even when people with different cultural backgrounds communicate, those differences may not be important. David may be a Jewish American whose ancestors came from Eastern Europe, whereas Lisa is a third-generation Japanese American whose parents are practicing Christians. Yet they could create a life together that transcends their differences and that leaves them able to deal comfortably with those differences when they do arise. Rather than classifying some exchanges as intercultural and others as free from cultural influences, it’s more accurate to talk about degrees of cultural significance (King et al., 2013). Encounters can fit along a spectrum of “interculturalness.” At the “most intercultural” end are situations in which communicators have highly different backgrounds or beliefs. Atraveler visiting a new country for the first time with little knowledge of local society is an obvious example. At the “least intercultural” end of the spectrum fall exchanges in which cultural differences are not significant. A student from Los Angeles who attends a small liberal arts college in the Midwest might find life there somewhat different, but the adjustment would be far less difficult than that for the international traveler. In between these extremes falls a whole range of encounters in which culture plays varying roles. Note that intercultural communication (at least as we’ll use that term here) doesn’t always occur when people from different cultures interact. The cultural backgrounds, perceptions, and symbol systems of the participants must have a significant impact on the exchange before we can say that culture has made a difference. Social scientists use the term salience to describe how much weight we attach to a particular person or phenomenon. Consider a few examples where culture has little or no salience: • A group of preschool children is playing together in a park. These 3-year-olds don’t recognize the fact that their parents may come fromdifferent countries, or even that they don’t speak the same language. At this point we wouldn’t say that intercultural communication is taking place. Only when cultural factors become salient (diet,sharing,or parental discipline, for example) do the children begin to think of one another as different. • Members of a school basketball team—some Asian, some black, some Latino, and some white—are intent on winning the league championship. During a game, cultural distinctions aren’t salient. There’s plenty of communication, but it isn’t fundamentally intercultural.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Away from their games, however, they might notice some fundamental differences in the way members of each group communicate. • A husband and wife were raised in homes with different religious traditions. Most of the time their religious heritage makes little difference, and the partners view themselves as a unified couple. Every so often, however—perhaps during religious holidays or when meeting members of each other’s family—the different backgrounds are more salient. At those times we can imagine the partners feeling quite different from each other, thinking of themselves as members of separate cultures.

INTERPERSONAL AND INTERCULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF COMMUNICATION What is the relationship between intercultural and interpersonal communication? William Gudykunst (2005) suggests that we can model interpersonal and intercultural factors on a two-by-two matrix (Figure 2.2). This model shows that some interpersonal transactions (e.g., a conversation between two siblings who have been raised in the same household) have virtually no intercultural elements. Other encounters (such as a traveler from Senegal trying to get directions from a Ukrainian taxi driver in New York City) are almost exclusively intercultural, without the personal dimensions that we have discussed throughout this book. Still other exchanges—the most interesting ones for our purposes— contain elements of both intercultural and interpersonal communication. This range of encounters is broad in the global village: business people from different backgrounds try to wrap up a deal; health care educators seek effective ways to serve patients from around the world; neighbors from different racial or ethnic backgrounds look for ways to make their streets safer and cleaner; suburban-bred teachers seek common ground with inner-city students—the list seems almost endless.

FIGURE 2.2 Sample Interactions Between Interpersonal and Intercultural Dimensions of Communication

INTERPERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE

HIGH

LOW

Parent and child discuss their changing relationship.

Spouses from different cultural backgrounds develop mutual understanding.

Over time, able-bodied and disabled fellow employees develop ways to work effectively together.

English-speaking caller requests directory assistance from English-speaking telephone operator.

Traveler unintentionally violates customs of a culture she or he doesn’t understand.

INTERCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

HIGH

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

INTERCULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS GENERALIZATIONS In the following pages, we spell out a variety of ways communication varies from one culture to another. Although More USA Similarities Formal these variations can sometimes be significant, it’s imporCultures tant to remember that cultural practices aren’t totally different: People from varied backgrounds often share enough common ground to make relationships work. Moreover, there are sometimes greater differences within cultures than between them (Kirkman et al., 2016). Low High Consider the matter of formality as an example: By most F O R M A L I T Y measures, U.S. culture is far more casual than many others. But as Figure 2.3 illustrates, there may be common ground FIGURE 2.3 Intercultural Differences and between a formal American and a casual member of a formal Similarities in Formality culture. Furthermore, within every culture, members disAdapted from Trompenaars, 1994 play a wide range of communication styles. For instance, although most Asian cultures tend to be collectivistic, some members of those cultures might identify themselves as individualists. For these reasons, it’s important to remember that generalizations—even when accurate and helpful—don’t apply to every member of a group.

CULTURAL VALUES AND NORMS Some cultural influences on communication are obvious. However, some far less visible values and norms can shape how members of cultures think and act (Chung & Rimal, 2016). In this section, we look at five of these subtle yet important factors. Unless communicators are aware of these differences, they may see people from other cultures as unusual—or even offensive. For this reason, it’s important to understand that what may seem like odd behavior can come from following a different set of beliefs and unwritten rules. As you think about the cultural values and norms described here, you may realize that they are not necessarily differences by nationality. In today’s increasingly multicultural society, people from different cultural backgrounds are likely to encounter one another at home, in the country they share.

HIGH VERSUS LOW CONTEXT Anthropologist Edward Hall (1959) identified two distinct ways that members of various cultures deliver messages. A high-context culture relies heavily on subtle, often nonverbal cues to maintain social harmony. High-context communicators pay close attention to nonverbal behaviors, the history of relationships, and social rules that govern interactions. By contrast, a low-context culture uses language primarily to express thoughts, feelings, and ideas as directly as possible. To low-context communicators, the meaning of a statement lies in the words spoken.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

TABLE 2.1 High-

Versus Low-Context Communication Cultures High Context

Low Context

Representative national cultures

Most Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin American, and Southern European countries

The United States, Canada, and most Northern European countries

How most important information is carried

Contextual cues such as time, place, relationship, and situation

Explicit verbal messages, with less focus on the situational context

What communicators value

Relational harmony, maintained by indirect expression of options

Self-expression, striving to persuade others to accept one’s viewpoint

What communicators admire

Ambiguity and the use of silence

Clear, direct speech

Table2.1 summarizes some key differences in how people from high- and low-context cultures communicate. Mainstream cultures in the United States, Canada, and Northern Europe fall toward the low-context end of the scale. In these cultures, communicators generally value straight talk and can grow impatient with indirect behaviors such as hinting (Tili & Barker, 2015). By contrast, most Asian and Middle Eastern mainstream cultures fit the high-context pattern and can be offended by the bluntness of low-context communication styles (Yum, 2012). There are many other examples of communication differences between high- and low-context cultures. One study of online discussions showed that in India (a high-context culture), people use more emoticons and disclose less private information than in Germany (a low-context culture; Pflug, 2011). Another study found that in China (a high-context culture), people favor nonverbal over verbal expressions of appreciation, whereas in the United States (a low-context culture), people use these types of expressions about evenly (Bello et al., 2010). Other research has found that low-context communicators use more competitive and dominating conflict styles, whereas high-context people are more obliging and accommodating (Croucher et al., 2012). Even websites designed for global audiences reflect differences attributable to whether the country’s communication style is high or low context (Usunier & Roulin, 2010). For example, those from low-context countries invite more contact and contain more relationship-related content than websites from high-context countries.

INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COLLECTIVISM Some cultures value the individual, whereas others place greater emphasis on the group. Members of an individualistic culture view their primary responsibility as helping themselves, whereas communicators in

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

collectivisticcultures feel loyalties and obligations to in-groups: extended family, the community, or even organizations (Hofstede, 2011). Individualistic cultures also are characterized by self-reliance and competition, whereas members of a collectivistic culture are more attentive to and concerned with the opinions of others. Scholars regard individualism– collectivism as the most fundamental dimension of cultural differences (Nguyen et al., 2010), and also the most likely cause of intercultural misunderstandings (Yang, 2015). Table 2.2 summarizes some differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Members of individualistic cultures tend to view themselves in terms of what they do, whereas people in collectivistic cultures are more likely to define themselves in terms of group membership. For instance, members of several cultures were asked to answer the question “Who am I?” 20 times (DeAngelis, 1992). North Americans were likely to respond by giving details about themselves as individuals (“I am athletic”; “I am short”). By contrast, members of more collectivistic societies—Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, and some South American cultures, for example—more often answered in terms of their relationships with others (“I am a father”; “I am an employee of XYZ Corporation”). The difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures also shows up in the level of comfort or anxiety communicators feel. In societies where the need to conform is great, there is a higher degree of TABLE 2.2 The

Self in Individualistic Versus Collectivistic Cultures Individualistic

Collectivistic

Representative national cultures

The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom

Ecuador, Indonesia, Pakistan

View of self in relation to group

Separate and unique individual; should be independent, self-sufficient

Part of extended family or in-group; “we” or group orientation

Care philosophy

Care for self and immediate family before others

Care for extended family before self

Group membership

Many flexible group memberships; friendships based on shared interests and activities

Emphasis on belonging to a very few permanent in-groups, which have a strong influence

What is rewarded

Individual achievement and initiative; individual decision making

Contribution to group goals and well-being; cooperation with in-group members; group decision making

Credit and blame assignment

Individually assigned

Shared by the group

What communicators value

Autonomy, change, youth, individual security, equality

Duty, order, tradition, age, group security, status, and hierarchy

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

The LEGO Movie illustrates the pros and cons of individualism and collectivism. Whereas the townsfolk value working together cooperatively (singing “Everything is cool when you’re part of a team”), Emmet (voiced by Chris Pratt) demonstrates the importance of unique and nonconformist thought and action. Where does your cultural orientation fall on the individualism–collectivism spectrum?

communication apprehension. For example, as a group, residents of China, Korea, and Japan exhibit a significantly higher degree of anxiety about speaking out in public than do members of individualistic cultures such as the United States and Australia (Berry, 2007). It’s important to realize that different levels of communication apprehension don’t mean that shyness is problematic in some cultures. In fact, just the opposite is true: In these societies, restraint is highly valued. When the goal is to avoid being “the nail that sticks out,” it’s logical to feel nervous when you make yourself appear different by calling attention your way. One study looked at how cultural values influence the way parents communicate with their children (Wakefield, 2013). The author found a sharp contrast between American English (AE) and Hong Kong Cantonese (HKC) cultures in parent–child interactions. AE parents, who value individualism, often pose questions to their children and offer them options (“Would you like to say hello to your uncle?”). Collectivist HKC parents typically give directives and expect compliance (“Say hello to your uncle”). These communication patterns are rooted in cultural values. For the collectivist, the goal is to raise children as respectful members of society—and honoring an uncle is mandatory, not optional. For the individualist, the objective is for children to gain autonomy and independence—and an uncle should understand if a child chooses not to say hello. Rather than viewing these differences negatively (AE parents are “indulgent”; HKC parents are “demanding”), it’s best to see them as reflections of their cultural value systems.

POWER DISTANCE The principle that “all men [and women] are created equal,” as embodied in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, is so fundamental that most members of democratic societies accept it without question. However, not all cultures share this belief. Some operate on the assumption that certain groups of people (an aristocracy or an economic class, for example) and some institutions (such as a church or the government) have the right to control the lives of individuals. Geert Hofstede (1984, 2011) coined the term power distance to describe the degree to which members of a society accept an unequal distribution of power. Cultures with low power distance believe in minimizing distinctions between various social classes. Rich and poor, educated and uneducated groups may still exist, but in low-power-difference cultures there is a pervasive belief that one person is as valuable as another. Low-power-distance cultures also support the notion that challenging authority is acceptable— even desirable. Members aren’t necessarily punished for raising questions about the status quo. According to Hofstede’s research, U.S. and Canadian societies have relatively low power distance, although not the lowest in the world. Austria, Denmark, Israel, and New Zealand proved to be the most egalitarian countries. At the other end of the spectrum are countries with

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

a high degree of power distance: Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela, India, and Singapore. The degree of power distance in a culture is reflected in key relationships (Santilli & Miller, 2011). Children who are raised in cultures with high power distance are expected to obey their parents and other authority figures to a degree that might astonish most children raised in the United States or Canada. Power automatically comes with age in many countries. For example, the Korean language has separate terms for older brother, oldest brother, younger sister, youngest sister, and so on. Parents in cultures with low power distance don’t expect the same degree of unquestioning obedience. They are not surprised when children ask “Why?” when presented with a request or demand. On-the-job communication is different in low- and high-powerdistance societies (Zerfass et al., 2016). In countries with higher degrees of power distance, employees have much less input into the way they perform their work. In fact, workers from these cultures are likely to feel apprehensive when given freedom to make their own decisions (Madlock, 2012) or when a more egalitarian boss asks for their opinion. The reverse is true when management from a culture with an egalitarian tradition tries to do business in a country whose workers are used to high power distance. They can be surprised to find that employees do not expect much say in decisions and do not feel unappreciated when they aren’t consulted. They may regard dutiful, submissive, respectful employees as lacking initiative and creativity—traits that helped them gain promotions back home. Given these differences, it’s easy to understand why multinational companies need to consider fundamental differences in communication values and behavior when they set up shop in a new country.

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE The desire to resolve uncertainty seems to be a universal trait (Berger, 1988). That said, cultures have different ways of coping with an unpredictable future. Hofstede (2011) uses the term uncertainty avoidance to reflect the levels of discomfort or threat people feel in response to ambiguous situations and how much they try to avoid them. He developed an uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) to measure these levels. His work has shown that residents of some countries (including Singapore, Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Hong Kong, and the United States) are less threatened by change and ambiguity than those of others (such as B elgium, Greece, Japan, and Portugal). Communication patterns can reflect a culture’s degree of uncertainty avoidance. In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, deviant people and ideas are generally considered dangerous, and intolerance and ethnocentrism are high (Cargile & Bolkan, 2013). People in these cultures are especially concerned with security, so they have a strong need for clearly defined rules and regulations. By contrast, people in cultures that are less threatened by the new and unexpected are more likely to tolerate—or even welcome—people who don’t fit the norm.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

When a North American who is relatively comfortable with change and novelty spends time with someone from a high UAI culture such as Japan, both communicators may find the other behaving in disconcerting ways. The North American may view the Japanese person as rigid and overly controlled, whereas the Japanese person may regard the North American as undisciplined and overly tolerant. On the other hand, if the communicators understand how their cultural conditioning affects their style, they are more likely to understand, and maybe even learn from, the styles of others.

ACHIEVEMENT VERSUS NURTURING The term achievement culture describes societies that place a high value on material success and a focus on the task at hand. By contrast, a nurturing culture regards the support of relationships as an especially important goal. People from achievement versus nurturing cultures voice their opinions in significantly different ways (Hofstede, 2016; van den Bos et al., 2010). In achievement cultures (e.g., the United States)—which emphasize outperforming others—those who see themselves as highly capable feel more empowered to voice their opinions and are satisfied when they can do so. By contrast, in nurturing cultures (e.g., the Netherlands)—which emphasize helping—those who see themselves as less capable feel valued as important group members and feel more satisfied when they have the opportunity to voice their opinions.

CO-CULTURES AND COMMUNICATION Much of how we view ourselves and how we relate to others grows from our cultural and co-cultural identity—the groups with which we identify. Where do you come from? What’s your ethnicity? Your sexual orientation? Your age? Your socioeconomic status? These have become increasingly important factors in interpersonal communication in contemporary society. In the following pages, we look at some—although by no means all— of the factors that help shape our cultural identity and hence the ways we perceive and communicate with others.

RACE AND ETHNICITY Race is a construct originally created to explain differences between people by ancestry. But as modern scientists explain, race has no biological basis (Berbrier, 2013). One analyst puts it this way: There is less to race than meets the eye. . . . The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone’s skin color doesn’t necessarily tell you anything else about him or her. (“Ten Things,” 2003)

Race has little use in explaining individual differences. Racial categories vary by culture, and there can be greater genetic variation within

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

races than between them (Witherspoon et al., 2007). For instance, some people with Asian ancestry are short, but others are tall. Some have sunny dispositions, while others are more stern. Some are terrific athletes, while others are much less so. The same applies to people from every background. As you will read in Chapter 4, stereotyping is usually a mistake—and yet racial stereotyping occurs frequently. Ethnicity refers to the degree to which a person identifies with a particular group, usually on the basis of nationality, culture, or some other unifying perspective (Samovar et al., 2013). For example, Irish Protestants and Catholics identify themselves as ethnically distinct from one another. The same holds true for many Sunni Straddling Cultures: black-ish and Shia Muslims as well as French- and English-speaking Canadians. Bow and Dre Johnson are successful professionIt is simplistic to think of people as als living in an upscale suburb with their four chilmembers of a single category. This is true dren. As the title black-ish suggests, Dre (Anthony for everyone, but consider former U.S. Anderson) and Bow (Tracee Ellis Ross) embrace their president Barack Obama, whose father was African American heritage while assimilating into black and mother was white. Obama expeco-cultures that are different from the ones in which rienced a variety of cultures while living in they were raised. Indonesia, Hawaii, California, New York, Although it’s a sitcom, the show isn’t shy about tackChicago, and Washington, DC. Recogling tough communication topics. Episodes have fonizing that culture is multidimensional, cused on use of the N-word, dealing with the police, scholars have developed the concept of and fitting in while honoring one’s cultural legacy. intersectionality to describe the interplay of This reflects the experience of the show’s creator, social categories, including gender, race, soKenya Barris. “I wanted to be honest with what it’s cioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and like raising your kids in a different environment than disability status (Chávez & G riffin, 2012). you were accustomed to,” he told NPR’s Terry Gross No single label (e.g., woman, black, lesbian) (2016). “My kids are nothing like I remember black can fully explain someone’s identities, perkids being when I was a kid.” ceptions, and behaviors (Levon, 2015). Barris has said that black-ish has less to do with race Identifying with more than one group can than culture. “It’s not a black show,” he notes (Piccalo, be challenging. Consider someone like 2016). “But it’s absolutely a show about a black family.” Heather Greenwood. In an article describing her experiences as a biracial person, she reports that strangers inquire how her children can have fair skin when she is dark. Others ask if she is the children’s nanny or joke that the kids must have been “switched in the hospital” when they were born. The implication, Greenwood says, is that a legitimate family is either one color or another. She hears comments such as these nearly every day. “Each time is like a little paper cut, and you think, ‘Well, that’s not a big deal.’ But imagine a lifetime of that. It hurts,” she says (Saulny, 2011).

Media Clip

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION

When “Harmless” Labels Do Harm Think of a derogatory term for a particular group of people. Now think of another label for a different group. Then one more for a third. You might feel guilty that these words came to mind so quickly.But it’s not surprising given the prevalence, and the sometimes casual use, of disparaging labels and slurs. Now consider the phrase “That’s so gay.” Sometimes the remark has little to do with sexual orientation (Friedrichs, 2016).Instead, “gay” is used synonymously for “stupid” or “awful,” even for inanimate objects (“That test was gay”). There are those who believe the phrase is harmless when it’s not explicitly about sexuality. But what if your co-culture were equated with stupidity and used as a negative adjective? (“Ugh, that’s so Christian” or “Latino” or “millennial.”) The implicit judgment is why researchers regard “That’s so gay” as a microaggression—an everyday instance of indirect or unintentional degradation of a marginalized group— that, over time, creates a climate of hostility toward people who are homosexual (Woodford et al., 2013). Sometimes the term “gay” is meant as a hostile dig about sexual orientation. Communication researchers found that the people most likely to use gay slurs are heterosexual males for whom “being a man” is a central part of their identity (Hall & LaFrance 2012, 2013). The truth is that slurs and derogatory labels say more about those who use them than about the people being disparaged. Many co-cultures have been demeaned by labels, slurs, and epithets. We must remember that the words we use have the power to both hurt and heal, so it behooves us to consider them carefully and use them wisely.

Along with the challenges, multiple-group membership can have its benefits. Many people say they are more open-minded and respectful of others as a result of coming from culturally rich backgrounds (Ross, 1996). Some research suggests multiple-group members are also more comfortable establishing relationships with a diverse array of people, which increases their options for friendships, romantic partners, and professional colleagues (Bonam & Shih, 2009).

GENDER IDENTITY/SEXUAL ORIENTATION

CNN host Anderson Cooper didn’t tell the public he was gay for years because he considered it private information. He was also concerned it might put him and others in danger, and he thought he could do a better job as a journalist if he “blended in” with the dominant straight culture (Sullivan, 2012). However, Cooper says his silence sometimes felt disingenuous. “Ihave given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something,” he says. He also believed he was missing an opportunity to dispel some of the fear and prejudice that surrounds the issue. “The tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible.” Chapter 3 has more to say about the relationship among self-concept, impression management, and self-disclosure. Deciding whether and how to disclose gender identity or sexual orientation can sometimes be challenging, but a supportive communication climate can make those decisions easier (Dixon, 2013). Consider the workplace: It can be helpful if the organization uses inclusive language like “significant other” instead of “spouse.” It’s even more powerful to see authority figures identify as LGBTQ (which stands for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer”), and when other LGBTQ employees bring their partners to work. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Tumblr provide a multitude of ways for communicators to express identities related to sexual orientation (Fox & Warber, 2015). These expressions can be affirming when the information is well received. But LGBTQ communicators who aren’t out to family and friends might fear the consequences of

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

going public, even when public opinion is shifting in a more supportive direction. On one hand, being open about gender identity has advantages— including a sense of being authentic with others and belonging to a supportive co-culture. On the other hand, the disclosure can sometimes be risky. People may be shocked or judgmental. They may ridicule LGBTQ individuals, discriminate against them, or even attack them. On average, one in five hate crimes in the United States targets people on the basis of their sexual orientation (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012). For more about bullying and its antidotes, see Chapter 12. Websites like ItGetsBetter.org deliver the message to LGBTQ youth that any harassment they may be experiencing isn’t their fault and that many people care about them. Since the It Gets Better Project launched in 2010, people have posted more than 50,000 videos, which have been viewed more than 50 million times. Cofounder Dan Savage says it shows what can happen when communication technology and good intentions combine (Barth, 2013).

AGE/GENERATION Imagine how odd it would seem to hear an 8-year-old or a senior citizen talking, dressing, or otherwise acting like a twentysomething. We tend to think of getting older as a purely biological process. But age-related communication reflects culture at least as much as biology. In many ways, we learn how to “do” various ages—how to dress, how to talk, and what not to say and do—in the same way we learn how to play other roles in our lives. Changing cultural assumptions shape relationships between older and younger people. At some points in history, older adults have been regarded as wise, accomplished, and even possessing magical powers (Fitch, 1985). At others, they have been treated as “dead weight” and uncomfortable reminders of mortality and decline (Gergen & Gergen, 2010). Today, for the most part, Western cultures honor youth, while attitudes (and talk) about aging are more negative than positive (Gasiorek & Fowler, 2016). On balance, people over age 40 are still twice as likely as younger ones to be depicted in the media as unattractive, bored, and in declining health (Bailey, 2010). And people over age 60, especially women, are still underrepresented in the media. However, the data present a different story. Studies show that, overall, people in their 60s are just as happy as people in their 20s (Frijters & Beatoon, 2012). Unfavorable attitudes about aging can show up in interpersonal relationships. Even though wrinkles and gray or thinning hair don’t necessarily signify diminished capacity, they may be interpreted that way—with powerful consequences. People who believe older adults have trouble communicating are less likely to interact with them. When they do, they tend to use speech mannerisms such as simplified or babyish grammar and vocabulary, increased volume and reduced rate, and repetition—all examples of overaccommodation (Giles & Gasiorek, 2011; Harwood, 2007). Even when these speech styles are well intentioned, they can have harmful effects. Older adults who are treated as less capable than their peers tend to

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

perceive themselves as older and less capable (Lin et al., 2004). And challenging ageist treatment presents seniors with a dilemma: Speaking up can be taken as a sign of being cranky or bitter, reinforcing the stereotype that those seniors are curmudgeons (Harwood, 2007). Communication challenges can arise when members of different generations work together. For example, one study showed that millennials tend to have less desire to make social connections at work than previous generations (Twenge et al., 2010). Such differences can cause intergenerational difficulties within team-based organizations. Millennials also have a much stronger need for affirming feedback than previous generations (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). Because of their strong desire for achievement, they want clear guidance on how to do a job correctly—but not to be micromanaged when they do it. After finishing the task, they have an equally strong desire for praise. To a baby-boomer boss, that type of guidance and feedback may feel more like a nuisance. In the boss’s experience, “no news is good news,” and not being told that you screwed up should be praise enough. Neither perspective is wrong. But when members of these co-cultures have different expectations, miscommunication can occur.

(DIS)ABILITIES “If it weren’t for the Deaf community, I wouldn’t be where I am today,” says Nyle DiMarco, winner of TV contests Dancing with the Stars and America’s Next Top Model. His accomplishments help demonstrate that physical challenges don’t necessarily stand in the way of success. How can communication with differently abled others enrich your life?

Nearly one in five adults in the U.S. lives with a disability (Callas, 2015). Some disabilities, such as certain cognitive challenges, aren’t easily observable. Others are more visible, such as mobility or vision issues. Communication scholars investigated how people with disabilities manage the challenges of fitting in at their places of work (Cohen & Avanzino, 2010). Participants in the study described several strategies for integrating into the culture of their organizations. One is assimilation— adapting and conforming to the dominant (nondisabled) group. This involves de-emphasizing differences and in some cases staying quiet about disabilities (one participant said, “The less you tell about your disability, the better off you are”). A different strategy, accommodation, involves acknowledging one’s disability and asking for ways that it can be accommodated. It can also include educating others about disabilities and actively dispelling misperceptions. Some of the study participants were more comfortable with accommodation, others with assimilation. But none of them wanted to be defined by their disabilities. John Altmann (2016) underscores this point by explaining the frustration of being identified only by his disability. The experience he describes took place when a motivational speaker addressed a group of high school students: The speaker was charismatic, exhibited a warm, jovial disposition and a wonderful sense of humor. I was smiling and laughing with the rest of the group. But at the end of the assembly, my friend and I were

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

singled out by the speaker, who said something that people with disabilities hear often—that because I got around on crutches and she with a scooter, we were “inspiring.” In that moment my personal characteristics, the people I love, the interests I pursue and the beliefs I hold became moot, and the fact that I have cerebral palsy and use crutches to walk became the entirety of who John Altmann is and what he is about. The friend who I sat with at the assembly got it . . . We wanted to be more than our disabilities, to overcome them and forge an identity apart from them.

Many people with disabilities find that belonging to a community of similar people can be rewarding. Deaf culture is a good example: There are Deaf schools, Deaf competitions (e.g., Miss Deaf America), Deaf performing arts (including Deaf comedians), and other organizations that bring deaf people together. For members of the Deaf community, being “different from” hearing people doesn’t mean “less than.” One former airline pilot who lost his hearing described his trip to China, where he interacted with colleagues who were deaf: Though we used different signed languages, these Chinese Deaf people and I could make ourselves understood; and though we came from different countries, our mutual Deaf culture held us together. . . . You couldn’t do that in China. . . . Who’s disabled then? (Solomon, 2012, pp. 68–69)

Regardless of the specific physical condition, it’s important to treat a disability as one feature, not as a defining characteristic of others. Describing someone as “a person who is blind” is both more accurate and less constricting than calling her a “blind person.” This difference might seem subtle—until you imagine which label you would prefer if you lost your sight.

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Social class can have a significant impact on how people communicate. People in the United States typically identify themselves as belonging to the working, middle, or upper class, and they feel a sense of solidarity with people in the same social stratum (Lucas, 2011). Social upbringing can have an effect on communication style. College professors often find that working-class college students who are raised not to challenge authority can have a difficult time speaking up, thinking critically, and arguing persuasively (Kim & Sax, 2009). The effects of social class continue into the workplace, where skills such as assertiveness and persuasiveness are career enhancers. People who come from working-class families and attain middle- or upper-class careers face special challenges. They may have to adopt new verbal and nonverbal behaviors to gain acceptance (Kaufman, 2003). Many also must

First-generation college students are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. They face the challenge of navigating two worlds: their culture of origin and the world of higher education. Have you ever experienced life in an unfamiliar socioeconomic co-culture?

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

cope with emotional ambivalences—a sense of both finding and losing their identity—related to their career success (Lubrano, 2004). First-generation college (FGC) students may feel the intercultural strain of “trying to live simultaneously in two vastly different worlds” of school and home (Lippincott & German, 2007; Orbe & Groscurth, 2004). Because no one in their family has attended college, FGC students often cope with an unfamiliar school environment by making an effort to assimilate—going out of their way to fit in on campus. In addition, some FGC students say they overcompensate by studying harder and getting more involved on campus than their non-FGC classmates, just to prove they belong in the college culture. At home, FGC students also engage in self-censorship but for different reasons. They are cautious when talking about college life for fear of threatening and alienating their families. Some even feel like “traitors” (Simmons et al., 2013). On the other hand, some feel a need to model their new educational status to younger family members so “they can see that it can be done.”

CODES AND CULTURE At this point, you probably have a healthy appreciation for the challenges that arise when people try to communicate interpersonally and interculturally. These challenges become even greater when the communicators use different verbal and nonverbal communication systems.

VERBAL CODES Although the world’s many languages have some remarkable similarities (Lewis et al., 2013), they also differ in important respects that affect communication within and between language groups. In the following sections, we outline some of those factors.

Language and Identity If you live in a culture where everyone speaks the same language, you may not notice how it affects your view of yourself and others. But what happens when some members of a society speak a dominant language while others speak a minority one? Speakers of a nondominant language can feel pressured to assimilate, or they can decide not to speak in the majority language (Gann, 2004). The impact of language on the self-concept is powerful (Bergman et al., 2008). It’s not surprising that people feel most confident and comfortable when communicating in their native language with people from their own culture (Allen et al., 2014). Even the names a culture uses to identify its members reflect its values and shape the way its members relate to one another. When asked to identify themselves, individualistic Americans, Canadians, Australians, and Europeans are most likely to respond by giving their first name, surname, street, town, and country—in that order. Many Asians respond the other way around (Smith, 2011). If you ask Hindus for their identity, many will

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

give you their caste and village and then their name. The Sanskrit f ormula for identifying oneself begins with lineage, goes on to state family and house, and ends with one’s personal name (Bharti, 1985). Japanese has as many as 100 different ways to say I, depending on whether you want to be polite, casual, businesslike, or arrogant; to emphasize your family role, your social situation, age, or gender (“100 Ways to Say ‘I’ in Japanese,” 2013).

Verbal Communication Styles Using language is more than just a matter of choosing a particular group of words to convey an idea. Each language has its own unique style that distinguishes it from others. Matters such as the amount of formality or

@work

Organizations Are Cultures

Organizations have cultures that can be just as distinctive as those of larger societies. Organizational culture reflects a relatively stable, shared set of values and behavioral rules within a company (Alvesson, 2011). In everyday language, culture is the insiders’ view of “the way things are around here.” Not all the rules and values of an organization are written down. And some that are written down aren’t actually followed. Perhaps the workday officially ends at 5 p.m., but you quickly notice that most people stay until at least 6:30. That says something about the culture. Because you’re likely to spend as much time at work as you do in personal relationships, selecting the right organization is as important as choosing a best friend. Research shows that we are likely to enjoy our jobs and do them well if we believe that the organization’s values reflect our own and are consistently and fairly applied (Hartnell et al., 2011). For example, some companies reward team members for offering great customer service without exception. On the other hand, a boss who talks about customer service but violates those principles may cultivate a culture of cynicism and dissatisfaction. Ask yourself these questions when considering whether a specific organization’s culture is a good fit for you. (Notice the importance of communication in each case.)

• How does the organization present itself online? • Do members of the organization have the resources and authority to do a good job? • Do employees have fun? Are they encouraged to be creative? • Is there a spirit of cooperation or competition among team members? • What criteria are used to evaluate employee performance? • What happens during meetings? Is communication open or highly scripted? • How often do people leave their jobs to work somewhere else? • Do leaders make a point of listening, respecting, and collaborating with employees? • Do people use their time productively, or are they bogged down with inefficient procedures or office politics? Research suggests that communication—even seemingly unimportant small talk (Mak & Chui, 2013)—is the vehicle through which we both create and embody culture. At a personal and organizational level, effective, consistent, value-based communication is essential to success.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

informality, precision or vagueness, and brevity or detail are major ingredients in speaking competently. When a communicator tries to use the verbal style associated with one culture in a different one, problems are likely to arise. Gudykunst (2005) describes three important types of cultural differences in verbal style: 1. Direct versus indirect. We’ve already discussed how low-context cultures use language primarily to express thoughts, feelings, and ideas as clearly, directly, and logically as possible, whereas high-context cultures may speak less directly, using language to maintain social harmony. 2. Elaborate versus succinct. For instance, speakers of Arabic commonly use language that is much more rich and expressive than normally found in English. Strong assertions and exaggerations that would sound outlandish in English are a common feature of Arabic. This contrast in linguistic style can lead to misunderstandings between people from different backgrounds. Succinctness is most extreme in cultures where silence is valued. In many Native American cultures, for example, the favored way to handle ambiguous social situations is to remain quiet (Ferraro & Andreatta, 2012). When you contrast this silent style to the talkativeness that is common when people first meet in mainstream American cultures, it’s easy to imagine how the first encounter between an Apache or Navajo and a European American might be uncomfortable for both people. 3. Formal versus informal. One guidebook for British readers who want to understand how Americans communicate describes the openness and informality that characterizes U.S. culture: Visitors may be overwhelmed by the sheer exuberant friendliness of Americans, especially in the central and southern parts of the country. Sit next to an American on an airplane and he will immediately address you by your first name, ask “So—how do you like it in the States?,” explain his recent divorce in intimate detail, invite you home for dinner, offer to lend you money, and wrap you in a warm hug on parting. This does not necessarily mean he will remember your name the next day. Americans are friendly because they just can’t help it; they like to be neighbourly and want to be liked. (Faul, 2008, p. 1)

The informal approach that characterizes communication in countries such as the United States is quite different from the great concern for propriety in many parts of Asia and Africa. In those cultures, formality isn’t so much a matter of using correct grammar as observing social norms. For example, one sign of being a learned person in Korea is the ability to use language that recognizes relational distinctions such as old friends, nonacquaintances whose background one knows, and complete strangers (Bjørge, 2007).

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

Verbal codes also operate closer to home, where people from different regions, socioeconomic backgrounds, generations, and ethnic groups have distinct ways of speaking. You don’t have to be a linguist to recognize distinctive codes such as inner-city jargon or teenage slang (Giles & Rakic, 2014). Consider how people could likely make accurate guesses about the co-culture(s) in which you were raised just by listening to you talk.

Code-Switching Communicators often adapt their manner of speaking when they change contexts—a practice linguists call code-switching (Bullock & Toribio, 2012). Code-switching is a form of communication competence that increases the chances of achieving your goals. One American expat living in Ireland offered an amusing account of how switching codes to sound more like a native helped save money (Thompson, 2013): We noticed there were often two prices for goods and services— reasonable prices for the locals and much more expensive costs for others (Americans). It was not easy, but I practiced my Irish accent until we qualified for “local pricing.”

Code-switching is a far more serious matter for members of some co-cultures. One writer (Bastién, 2016) explains how African Americans often adopt mainstream white speech mannerisms as a means of self-defense: We learn early and often that the way we are in spaces with other black people is not the way we should be in professional circles. So the clipped words, slang and biting humor we use with friends becomes smoothed out. We take on a style that our white peers find safe and nonthreatening.

Shifting between codes doesn’t require rejecting your heritage. Think of it as a type of bilingual ability. A first-generation student from rural Appalachia described feeling out of place at a state university when she used expressions common to her region, such as “holler” and “dicker” (Landecker, 2016). When she took a course on language diversity that encouraged her to embrace her home dialect (form of language), she said, “I fell head over heels in love with it.” That student might have chosen to code-switch at times, but she would be doing so for pragmatic reasons, without feeling shame about her roots. And when she was comfortable with people who appreciated her heritage, she could settle into the manner of speaking she learned while growing up. By now you should understand that verbal codes aren’t “right” or “wrong”; they’re simply reflections of different cultures. For more about the linguistic functions of code-switching, see Chapter 5’s section on “Affiliation.”

The TV series Orange Is the New Black follows Piper Chapman (Taylor Schilling), whose privileged life changes when she is sentenced to a term in federal prison. Piper has to adapt to the culture of prison—including its raw language codes—to survive. Can you think of times when you’ve changed your verbal style to adapt to a new context?

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Saying “I’m Sorry” in Japanese and English: Different Codes You’re late meeting a friend. When you finally arrive, what—and how much—should you say? Communication researcher Mariko Kotani finds that culture plays an important role in both offering and interpreting apologies. Kotani conducted in-depth interviews with native Japanese and English speakers (in their own tongues) to learn more about their speech codes. They were asked to describe a variety of minor offenses in their personal relationships and how to best address them. In Japanese culture, “I’m sorry” is a necessary part of acknowledging a mistake (such as tardiness), and it might be said several times. Its primary meaning is “I’m sorry you were inconvenienced,” with a focus on the other person’s feelings. Offering explanations

is viewed as making excuses, and that’s bad form. Saving the other person’s face is paramount. The governing code is to apologize profusely, then move on. For the English-speaking Americans, the unwritten code is that “I’m sorry” is an admission of responsibility. If the phrase is used, it’s typically followed by an explanation—often a lengthy one. The goal behind expressing regret is to gain forgiveness (“That’s okay”) and perhaps dodge blame (“It was traffic’s fault”). Saving one’s own face is paramount. Explain until you get absolved. These different codes pose challenges for intercultural relations. What does “I’m sorry” mean? Are explanations helpful or not? Competent communicators need to be aware of how members of other cultures may perceive their well-intentioned words.

Kotani, M. (2016). Two codes for remedying problematic situations: Japanese and English speakers’ views of explanations and apologies in the United States. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45, 126–144.

NONVERBAL CODES Many elements of nonverbal communication are shared by all humans, regardless of culture (Matsumoto, 2006). For instance, people of all cultures convey messages through facial expressions and gestures. Furthermore, some of these physical displays have the same meaning everywhere. Crying is a universal sign of unhappiness or pain, and smiles signal friendly intentions. (Of course, smiles and tears may be insincere and manipulative, but their overt meanings are similar and constant in every culture.) Despite nonverbal similarities, the range of differences in nonverbal behavior is tremendous. Consider the use of gestures such as the “OK” sign made by joining thumb and forefinger to form a circle. This gesture is a cheery affirmation to most Americans, but it has very different meanings in other parts of the world (Knapp & Hall, 2006; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013). In France and Belgium, it means “you’re worth zero”; in Japan, it means “money”; and in Greece and Turkey, it is an insulting or vulgar sexual invitation. Given this sort of cross-cultural ambiguity, it’s easy to visualize how a tourist from the United States could wind up in serious trouble overseas without understanding why. Less obvious cross-cultural differences can damage relationships without the communicators ever recognizing exactly what has gone wrong (Beaulieu, 2004). For example, Anglo-Saxons use the largest zone of personal space, followed by Asians. People from the Mediterranean and Latinos use the closest distance. Imagine the awkward advance and retreat

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

pattern that might occur when two diplomats or businesspeople from these cultures meet. The Middle Easterner might keep moving forward to close the gap, while the North American would back away. Both would probably feel uncomfortable. Like distance, patterns of eye contact vary around the world. A mericans learn to maintain eye contact during conversations, and avoiding eye contact can be interpreted as insincerity or a sign of weakness. By contrast, in China a mutual gaze is appropriate only in close, interdependent relationships (Guo & Hu, 2013). In either case, deviations from the norm are likely to make a culturally uneducated listener uncomfortable. You’ll read much more about cultural differences in nonverbal communication in Chapter 6.

DEVELOPING INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE What distinguishes competent from incompetent intercultural communicators? In the rest of this chapter, we focus on answering this question. But before we get to the answers, take a moment to complete the “Assessing Your Communication” quiz on page 60 to evaluate your intercultural communication competence. To a great degree, interacting successfully with people from different cultures calls for the same ingredients of general communicative competence outlined in Chapter 1. It’s important to have a wide range of behaviors and to be skillful at choosing and performing the most appropriate ones in a given situation. A genuine concern for others plays an important role. Cognitive complexity and the ability to empathize also help, although empathizing with someone from another culture can be challenging (Cassels et al., 2010). Finally, self-monitoring is important because the need to make mid-course corrections in your approach is often necessary when dealing with people from other cultures. But beyond these basic qualities, communication researchers have sought to identify qualities that are unique, or at least especially important, ingredients of intercultural communicative competence (A rasaratnam & Banerjee, 2011; Dai & Chen, 2015).

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

A S S E S S I N G YO U R CO M M U N I C AT I O N

What Is Your Intercultural Communication Competence? Imagine yourself interacting with people from a wide variety of cultural groups, not just one or two. Record your first impression to each of the following statements using a scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree.” In addition, consider inviting someone who knows you well to rate you on each item. _____

1. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds.

_____ 2. I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me. _____ 3. I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from different cultures. _____ 4. I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages. _____ 5. I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures. _____ 6. I know the rules for expressing nonverbal behaviors in other cultures. _____

7. I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.

_____ 8. I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me. _____

9. I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me.

_____ 10. I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. _____ 11. I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations. _____ 12. I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it. _____ 13. I change my nonverbal behavior when a cross-cultural situation requires it. _____ 14. I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. Adapted from Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335–371.

For scoring information, see page 66 at the end of the chapter.

MOTIVATION AND ATTITUDE The desire to communicate successfully with strangers is an important start. For example, people who are highly willing to communicate with people from other cultures report a greater number of friends from different

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

backgrounds than those who are less willing to reach out (Kassing, 1997). But desire alone isn’t sufficient (Arasaratnam, 2006). Some other ways of thinking described here are essential when dealing with people from other backgrounds (Samovar et al., 2007).

TOLERANCE FOR AMBIGUITY As noted earlier, one of the most important concerns facing communicators is their desire to reduce uncertainty about one another (Berger, 1988; Gibbs et al., 2011). When we encounter communicators from different cultures, the level of uncertainty is especially high. Consider the basic challenge of communicating in an unfamiliar language. Pico Iyer (1990, pp. 129–130) captures the ambiguity that arises from a lack of fluency when he describes his growing friendship with Sachiko, a Japanese woman he met in Kyoto: I was also beginning to realize how treacherous it was to venture into a foreign language if one could not measure the shadows of the words one used. When I had told her, in Asuka, “Jennifer Beals ga suki-desu. Anata mo” (“I like Jennifer Beals—and I like you”), I had been pleased to find a way of conveying affection, and yet, I thought, a perfect distance. But later I looked up suki and found that I had delivered an almost naked protestation of love. . . . Meanwhile, of course, nearly all her shadings were lost to me. . . . Once, when I had to leave her house ten minutes early, she said, “I very sad,” and another time, when I simply called her up, she said, “I very happy”—and I began to think her unusually sensitive, or else prone to bold and violent extremes, when really she was reflecting nothing but the paucity of her English vocabulary. . . . Talking in a language not one’s own was like walking on one leg; when two people did it together, it was like a three-legged waltz.

Competent intercultural communicators accept—even welcome—this kind of ambiguity. Iyer (1990, pp. 220–221) describes the way the mutual confusion he shared with Sachiko actually helped their relationship develop: Yet in the end, the fact that we were both speaking in this pared-down diction made us both, I felt, somewhat gentler, more courteous, and more vulnerable than we would have been otherwise, returning us to a state of innocence.

Without a tolerance for ambiguity, the mass of often confusing and sometimes downright incomprehensible messages that bombard intercultural sojourners would be impossible to manage. Some people seem to come equipped with this sort of tolerance, while others have to cultivate it. One way or the other, that ability to live with uncertainty is an essential ingredient of intercultural communication competence (Gudykunst, 1993).

OPEN-MINDEDNESS Being comfortable with ambiguity is important, but without an openminded attitude a communicator will have trouble interacting competently with people from different backgrounds. To understand open-mindedness,

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

it’s helpful to consider two traits that are incompatible with it. Ethnocentrism is an attitude that one’s own culture is superior to others. An ethnocentric person thinks—either privately or openly—that anyone who does not belong to his or her in-group is somehow strange, wrong, or even inferior. (See the Watch and Discuss feature in this section for an example.) Travel writer Rick Steves (n.d.) describes how an ethnocentric point of view can interfere with respect for other cultural practices: Watch and Discuss Look up and watch “Momondo: The DNA Journey.” 1) Identify the roles of ethnocentrism and prejudice in some of the comments made. 2) Discuss how learning about one’s ancestry could assist intercultural communication.

We [Americans] consider ourselves very clean, but when we take baths, we use the same water for soaking, cleaning, and rinsing. (We wouldn’t wash our dishes that way.) The Japanese, who use clean water for every step of the bathing process, might find our ways strange or even disgusting. People in some cultures blow their nose right onto the street. They couldn’t imagine doing that into a small cloth, called a hanky, and storing it in their pocket to be used again and again. . . . Too often we judge the world in terms of “civilized” and “primitive.” I was raised thinking the world was a pyramid with the US on top and everyone else was trying to get there. I was comparing people on their ability (or interest) in keeping up with us in material consumption, science, and technology. . . . Over the years, I’ve found that if we measure cultures differently (maybe according to stress, loneliness, heart attack rates, hours spent in traffic jams, or family togetherness), the results stack up differently. It’s best not to fall into the “rating game.” All societies are complex and highly developed in their own way.

Few things will open your mind to a foreign culture more than learning its language (Mafela, 2013). As Chapter 5 describes, every language carries with it a worldview—a way of understanding and talking about life’s events. It’s no surprise then that bilingualism is strongly linked to intercultural communication competence (Arasaratnam-Smith, 2016). Ethnocentrism leads to an attitude of prejudice—an unfairly biased and intolerant attitude toward others who belong to an out-group. (Note that the root term in prejudice is “prejudge.”) An important element of prejudice is stereotyping. Stereotypical prejudices include the obvious exaggerations that all women are emotional, all men are sex-crazed and insensitive goons, all older people are out of touch with reality, and all immigrants are welfare parasites. Stereotyping can even be a risk when it comes to knowledge of cultural characteristics such as individualism or collectivism. Not all members of a group are equally individualistic or collectivistic. For example, a close look at Americans of European and Latin descent showed differences within each group (Oetzel, 1998). Some Latinos were more independent than some European Americans, and vice versa. Openmindedness is especially important in intercultural work teams (Matveev, 2004). We have more to say about stereotyping in Chapter 4.

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL Attitude alone isn’t enough to guarantee success in intercultural encounters. Communicators need to possess enough knowledge of other cultures to know what approaches are appropriate. The ability to “shift gears” and

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

adapt one’s style to the norms of another culture or co-culture is an essential ingredient of communication competence (Self, 2009). How can a communicator acquire the culture-specific information that leads to competence? One important element is what Stella Ting-Toomey (1999) and others label as mindfulness—awareness of one’s own behavior and that of others. Communicators who lack this quality blunder through intercultural encounters mindlessly, oblivious of how their own behavior may confuse or offend others, and how behavior that they consider weird may be simply different. Formally studying a culture by taking courses or training seminars can help increase mindfulness, as can informal learning experiences such as traveling, reading international press, and having contact with people from different cultural groups (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2012).

PATIENCE AND PERSEVERANCE Becoming comfortable and competent in a new culture or co-culture may be ultimately rewarding, but the process isn’t easy. After a “honeymoon” phase, it’s typical to feel confused, disenchanted, lonesome, and homesick. To top it off, you may feel disappointed in yourself for not adapting as

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Living in Another Culture: Adapting and Adopting It’s one thing to learn about another culture from a distance; it’s another to become immersed. Gina Barker conducted 40 in-depth interviews with Americans living in Sweden and Swedes living in the United States. The two countries’ unique communication styles were easy for the participants to identify and describe. The prominent difference the interviewees noted involved communicating with strangers. Americans make smiling small talk in public with people they don’t know. Swedes, on the other hand, are more reserved with strangers—but very loyal to friends. “When you get below the surface,” said one participant, “you find that Swedes are just as loving, just as friendly, and just as fun. But that relationship is deeper.” Americans tend to talk more, faster, and louder than Swedes, who value silence and dislike interrupting. Swedes admit having difficulty understanding the individualism that permeates American culture.

“In the U.S.,” said one Swede, “it’s ‘I take care of my myself. Society takes care of those who are weak.’ In Sweden, it’s ‘Society takes care of everyone.’” Conversely, Americans find Sweden’s collectivism challenging to grasp: “When I ask questions about why things are the way they are, the answer I get is some version of: ‘This is the way we all do it.’” The majority of the participants felt responsible to adapt to their host culture in order to facilitate intercultural communication. “I understand and enter into the culture,” said one, “and know how to act in order to maintain close relationships.” And some even adopt new communication practices. A few of the Swedes said they have become friendlier with strangers, while an American came away with this change: When I go (home) to America and I’m standing in line and someone starts chatting me up, I’m like, “Can I have my privacy? I don’t want to talk to you right now.”

Barker, G. G. (2016). Cross-cultural perspectives on intercultural communication competence. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45, 13–30.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

easily as you expected. This stage—which typically feels like a crisis—has acquired the labels culture shock or adjustment shock. You wouldn’t be the first person to be blindsided by culture shock. When Lynn Chih-Ning Chang (2011) came to the United States from Taiwan for graduate school, she cried every day on the way home from class. All her life, she had been taught that it was respectful and ladylike to sit quietly and listen, so she was shocked that American students spoke aloud without raising their hands, interrupted each other, addressed the teacher by first name, and ate food in the classroom. What’s more, Chang’s classmates answered so quickly that by the time she was ready to say something, they were already on a new topic. The same behavior that made her “a smart and patient lady in Taiwan,” she says, made her seem like a “slow learner” in the United States. Communication theorist Young Yum Kim (2005) has studied cultural adaptation extensively. She says it’s natural to feel a sense of push and pull between the familiar and the novel. Kim encourages sojourners to regard stress as a good sign. It means they have the potential to adapt and grow. With patience, the sense of crisis begins to wane and, and once again, there’s energy and enthusiasm to learn more. Communication can be a challenge while you’re learning how to operate in new cultures, but it can also be a solution. Chang, the Taiwanese student adapting to life in America, learned this firsthand. At first, she says, she was reluctant to approach American students and they were reluctant to approach her. Gradually, she got up the courage to initiate conversations, and she found that her classmates were friendly and receptive. Eventually, she made friends, began to fit in, and successfully completed her degree. The transition from culture shock to adaptation and growth is usually successful, but it isn’t a smooth, linear process. Instead, people tend to take two steps forward and one step back and to repeat that pattern many times. Kim (2008) calls this a “draw back and leap” pattern. Above all, she says, if people are patient and they keep trying, the rewards are worth it.

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING Objective 2.1 Explain the relationship between intercultural and interpersonal dimensions of communication.

The growing diversity of American culture at home and the increased exposure to people from around the world make an understanding of intercultural

communication essential. In a diverse society, interpersonal encounters are marked by degrees of cultural and co-cultural salience. Q: What are the most salient intercultural differences you are likely to encounter in your interpersonal relationships?

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

Objective 2.2 Describe five key values that help shape a culture’s communication norms.

When members of different cultures interact, their values can affect interaction in ways that may be felt but not understood. These values include an emphasis on high- or low-context communication, individualism or collectivism, high or low power distance, relatively more or less avoidance of uncertainty, and either achievement or nurturing. Q: What key values characterize the culture in which you communicate most comfortably? Q: What communication challenges arise when you communicate with people with different values?

Objective 2.3 Recognize the range

Q: How can you best manage your communication with members of other co-cultures?

Objective 2.4 Explain the factors that shape a culture’s verbal and nonverbal codes.

The codes that members of a culture use are often the most recognizable factors that shape communication between people from different backgrounds. Verbal codes include language spoken and the worldview created by it, as well as verbal communication style. Nonverbal codes also differ significantly, as do the attributions that cultural conditioning generates. Q: Describe a set of cultural values, norms, and codes different from yours that could result in different cultural communication patterns.

of co-cultures in today’s society and how co-cultural factors can affect interpersonal communication.

Objective 2.5 Identify the attitudes,

Within any society, people belong to a variety of co-cultures, each of which carries its own identity and operates with its own set of communication rules. Some co-cultures include ethnicity and race, gender identity and sexual orientation, age/generation, and socioeconomic status.

Intercultural communicative competence involves five dimensions: motivation and attitude, tolerance for ambiguity, open-mindedness, knowledge and skill, and patience and perseverance.

Q: What co-cultures do you belong to, and what rules govern communication within these groups? How do these rules differ for members of other co-cultures you are likely to encounter?

knowledge, and skills required for intercultural communication competence.

Q: Explain how you can apply the guidelines for intercultural competence in this chapter when interacting with people of cultural backgrounds different from your own.

KEY TERMS Achievement culture (48) Co-culture (39) Code-switching (57) Collectivistic culture (45) Culture (38) Ethnicity (49) Ethnocentrism (62)

High-context culture (43) Individualistic culture (44) In-group (39) Intercultural communication (40) Intersectionality (49) Low-context culture (43) Nurturing culture (48)

Out-group (39) Power distance (46) Prejudice (62) Race (48) Salience (41) Social identity (39) Uncertainty avoidance (47)

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

ACTIVITIES 1. With a group of classmates, identify the co-cultures to which each of you belongs. What in-groups do you belong to? You can best answer this question by thinking about whom you regard as belonging to out-groups. Based on your observations, consider the criteria you use to define in- and out-groups. Do you rely on race? Ethnicity? Age? Lifestyle? How do your judgments about in-and out-group membership affect your communication with others?

3. The At Work sidebar on p. 55 describes how organizations have the properties of a culture. Select a place of business where you have worked and describe in a few sentences its organizational culture. What rules, either explicit or implicit, guide the communication in that workplace? Describe how these cultural norms affect how you have interacted with supervisors, coworkers, and customers on that job.

2. With a partner, identify one of your important interpersonal relationships. Consider how that relationship might be different if you and your partner adopted values and norms that were opposite from the ones you already hold. For example, if your communication is low context, how would things be different if you shifted to a high-context style? If you are tolerant of uncertainty, what might happen if you avoided any surprises? Based on your answers, consider the advantages and disadvantages of the cultural values and norms you hold. Think about the pros and cons of cultures that have differing values and norms.

4. Identify one culture with which you currently interact or could interact with in the future. Collect information on communication rules and norms in that culture through library/internet research and personal interviews. Based on your findings, describe the steps you can take to communicate more effectively with the culture’s members. 5. Use the criteria on pages 60–64 to evaluate your intercultural communication competence. If possible, invite someone from a different culture or co-culture to help with this assessment.

SCORING FOR ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION (PAGE 60)

Add responses to items 1, 2, and 3. This is your metacognitive cultural intelligence score Add responses to items 4, 5, and 6. This is your cognitive cultural intelligence score. Add responses to items 7, 8, and 9. This is your motivational cultural intelligence score. Add responses to items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. This is your behavioral cultural intelligence score. Metacognitive cultural intelligence refers to the mental processes individuals use, such as planning and monitoring, to understand cultures. Those with high metacognitive cultural intelligence—scores of 15 and higher— are consciously aware of others’ cultural preferences before and during interactions, and question their assumptions and adjust accordingly. Cognitive cultural intelligence refers to knowledge of the norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures. Those with high cognitive cultural intelligence—scores of 11 and higher—understand similarities and differences across cultures. Motivational cultural intelligence refers to the capability to direct attention and energy toward learning about and functioning in situations characterized by cultural differences. Those with high motivational

C H A P TE R 2 Culture and I nterpersonal Communication

cultural intelligence—scores of 16 and higher—direct attention and energy toward cross-cultural situations and have confidence in their interaction effectiveness. Behavioral cultural intelligence refers to the capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors when interacting with people from different cultures. Those with high behavioral cultural intelligence—scores of 21 and higher—exhibit behaviors appropriate to the situation.

3 Interpersonal Communication and the Self LEARNING OBJECTIVES

CHAPTER OUTLINE

3.1

Communication and the Self-Concept 70

3.2 3.3

Describe how the self-concept is subjective and is shaped by, and consequently affects, communication with others. Explain how we manage impressions in person and online to enhance our presenting image. Identify an optimal level of self-disclosure and non-disclosure in effective relationships.

FEATURES Focus on Research: Does Instagram = #Instasad? 73 Watch and Discuss: “Dove Evolution Commercial” 74 Media Clip: Reflecting Years of Appraisal: This Is Us 75 At Work: Impression Management in the Workplace 81 Media Clip: The Promise and Perils ofOnline Relationships: Catfish: TheTV Show 82 Dark Side of Communication: Talking Frankly About STDs 90 Assessing Your Communication: Online and Offline Self-Disclosure 93

• How the Self-Concept Develops 71 • Characteristics of the Self-Concept 73 • The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Communication 76

Presenting the Self 77 • Public and Private Selves 78 • Characteristics of Impression Management 79 • Face-to-Face Impression Management 80 • Impression Management in Social Media 80 • Impression Management and Honesty 83

Disclosing the Self 84 • Self-Disclosure Factors 85 • Models of Self-Disclosure 86 • Benefits and Risks of Self-Disclosure 88 • Guidelines for Self-Disclosure 91 • Alternatives to Self-Disclosure 93 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 98 KEY TERMS 99 ACTIVITIES 100

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

HO ARE YOU? Before reading on, take a few minutes to try a simple exercise. First, make a list of the 10 words or phrases that describe the most important features of who you are. Some may be social roles (student, son or daughter, employee). Some may be physical characteristics (athletic, tall), others intellectual (smart, inquisitive). Perhaps you can best define yourself in terms of moods, feelings, or attitudes (optimistic, critical, energetic). Or you could consider your social characteristics (outgoing, shy, defensive). You may highlight belief systems (pacifist, Christian, vegetarian, libertarian). Maybe your work is an important part of who you are (barista, teacher, blogger). Finally, you could focus on particular skills (swimmer, artist, chess player). In any case, choose 10 words or phrases that best describe you and write them down. Next, reorder your list, ranking the 10 items from most to least fundamental to your identity.

COMMUNICATION AND THE SELF-CONCEPT The list you created in this exercise offers clues about your self-concept: the relatively stable set of perceptions you hold of yourself. Imagine a mirror that reflected not only your appearance but other aspects of who you are— your typical emotional states, special talents, likes, dislikes, values, roles, and so on. That reflection would be your self-concept. Note that any description you constructed in this exercise is only a partial one. To make it even close to complete, you’d have to add hundreds of words. Of course, not every dimension of your self-concept list is equally important, and the types of descriptions that are most important vary from person to person. For example, the most significant part of one person’s self-concept might consist of social roles, whereas for another it might be physical appearance, health, friendships, accomplishments, or skills. Self-esteem is the part of the self-concept that involves evaluations of self-worth. Your self-concept might include being quiet, argumentative, or serious. How you feel about these qualities determines your self-esteem. Self-esteem evaluations begin at a young age (Cvencek et al., 2016) and have a powerful, cyclical effect on communication behavior, as Figure 3.1 shows. People who feel good about themselves have positive expectations about how they will communicate (Baldwin & Keelan, 1999). These feelings increase the chance that communication will be successful, and successes contribute to positive self-evaluations, which reinforce self-esteem. Of course, the same principle can work in a negative cycle when communicators have low self-esteem. One study found that people with low self-esteem don’t fare well on social networking sites (Forest & Wood, 2012): They tend to post more negative information, and people are less likely to respond to downbeat messages. What could be a tool for connecting with others can thus perpetuate low self-esteem.

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf POSITIVE CYCLE

NEGATIVE CYCLE

High self-esteem

Low self-esteem

Positive thoughts (“I did well.”)

Positive thoughts (“I can do it.”)

Negative thoughts (“I failed again.”)

Desirable behavior (e.g., makes best effort)

Negative thoughts (“I can’t do it.”)

Undesirable behavior (e.g., gives up easily, won’t try)

FIGURE 3.1 The Relationship Between Self-Esteem and Communication Behavior Adapted from Johnson, 1998.

Although high self-esteem has obvious benefits, it doesn’t guarantee interpersonal success. People with high self-esteem may think they make better impressions on others and have better friendships and romantic lives, but neither impartial observers nor objective tests verify these beliefs (Baumeister et al., 2003). It’s easy to see how people with an inflated sense of self-worth could irritate others by coming across as condescending know-it-alls. Moreover, people with low self-esteem have the potential to change their self-appraisals. The point here is that positive self-evaluations can often be the starting point for positive communication with others.

HOW THE SELF-CONCEPT DEVELOPS Researchers generally agree that self-concept does not exist at birth (Rochat, 2001). At about 6 or 7 months of age, infants begin to recognize “self” as distinct from surroundings. If you’ve ever watched children at this age, you’ve probably marveled at how they can stare with great fascination at their own foot or hand, almost as if these were strange objects belonging to someone else. Then the connection is made: “The foot is me,” “The hand is me.” These first revelations form the child’s earliest concept of self. As the child develops, this rudimentary sense of identity expands into a much more complete and sophisticated picture that resembles the selfconcept of adults. This evolution is almost totally a product of social interaction (Kranstuber & Kellas, 2011). Two complementary theories describe how interaction with others shapes the way individuals view themselves: reflected appraisal and social comparison.

Reflected Appraisal Now try the following exercise. First, recall someone who helped enhance your self-esteem by acting in a way that made you feel accepted, worthwhile, important, appreciated, or loved. For instance, you might recall a childhood teacher who took time to encourage you specifically. Next,

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Early messages from significant others can shape the selfconcept for a lifetime. What messages from your childhood have affected your selfconcept and the way you communicate?

recall someone who acted in either a big or small way to diminish your self-esteem, such as a coach who criticized you in front of the team. After thinking about these two types of interactions, you should begin to see that everyone’s self-concept is to some degree a reflected appraisal: a mirroring of others’ judgments (Asencio, 2013). To the extent that you have received supportive messages, you have learned to appreciate and value yourself. Receiving critical signals, on the other hand, can make you feel less valuable, lovable, and capable (Lemay & Dudley, 2009). In part, your self-concept is a reflection of the messages you’ve received throughout your life—both in person and via social media (Wallace & Tice, 2012). Social scientists use the term significant other to describe a person whose evaluations are especially influential (Dehart et al., 2011). Messages from parents, of course, are an early and important influence on the selfconcept. Supportive parents are more likely than unsupportive ones to raise children with stable self-concepts and high self-esteem (Sillars et al., 2005). Unfortunately, not all parental messages are positive. For instance, daughters exposed to “fat talk” from their mothers often develop body image issues, sometimes resulting in eating disorders (Arroyo & Andersen, 2016). Along with family, the messages from many other significant others shape our self-concept. Teachers, friends, romantic partners, and even some acquaintances can all leave an imprint on how you view yourself— sometimes for better, sometimes for worse (Rill et al., 2009). You might argue that not every part of your self-concept is shaped by others. After all, nobody needs to tell you whether you are tall, speak with an accent, have curly hair, and so on. Indeed, some features of the self are immediately apparent. But the significance we attach to them—that is, therank we assign them in the hierarchy of our list and the interpretation we give them—depends greatly on the opinions of others.

Social Comparison So far, we have looked at the way others’ messages shape one’s self-concept and self-esteem. In addition to using these messages, we form our selfimage by the process of social comparison: evaluating ourselves in comparison with others (Strickhouser & Zell, 2015). We decide whether we are superior or inferior (which influences our self-esteem) and similar or different (which influences our self-concept) by comparing ourselves to what social scientists call reference groups—others against whom we evaluate our own characteristics (Van De Gaer et al., 2012). You might feel ordinary or inferior in terms of talent, friendships, or attractiveness if you compare yourself with an inappropriate reference group. For instance, studies have shown that young women who regularly compare themselves with ultra-thin models develop negative appraisals of their own bodies, in some cases leading to eating disorders (Arroyo, 2015; Krcmar et al., 2008). Men, too, who compare themselves to media-idealized male physiques evaluate their bodies negatively (Cho & Lee, 2013).

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Does Instagram = #Instasad? Along with its personal and relational benefits, Facebook usage has been linked with lower self-esteem and even depression for some users. A research team led by Katerina Lup wanted to know if the same holds true for Instagram, the photo-sharing network. In the study, 117 regular users of Instagram (ages 18–29) were asked about their use of the social media tool. They were also given a battery of tests measuring tendencies toward social comparison and depression. The researchers were not surprised to find some connection between Instagram use, negative social comparison, and depressive symptoms. But there was a twist to these findings: The negative effects were highest for those who followed

more strangers on Instagram. For those who mostly followed friends and family, social comparisons were generally positive and depressive symptoms low. The researchers suggest that we don’t feel inferior when comparing ourselves to people we know well because we’re not fooled by their glamorous self-portrayals. With strangers, we’re more prone to believe they do live better lives—and comparisons with them are thus more depressing. The takeaway? Consider limiting the number of strangers you follow on Instagram and other social media—and remember that their lives aren’t as perfect as they may seem.

Lup, K., Trub, L., & Rosenthal, L. (2015). Instagram #instasad?: Exploring associations among Instagram use, depressive symptoms, negative social comparison, and strangers followed. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 247–252.

People also use others’ online profiles as points of comparison, and they may feel less attractive, successful, and happy after doing so (Arroyo & Brunner, 2016). In particular, Facebook comparisons can lead to lowered selfesteem and even depression (Cramer et al., 2016). As you’ll read later in this chapter, social networking profiles are an exercise in impression management, and they rarely reflect the warts and bumps of everyday life. But some look at others’ Facebook pages and conclude, “They are happier and having better lives than I am” (Chou & Edge, 2012). The Focus on Research sidebar on this page describes how Instagram users can make similar negative comparisons—and how choosing appropriate reference groups can be an antidote to the problem. To some degree, we’re in control of our reference groups. It’s possible to seek out people with whom we compare more favorably (Beer & Hughes, 2011). For instance, you might decide that it’s foolish to constantly compare your athletic prowess with that of professionals or your looks with those of movie stars. Once you place yourself alongside a truly representative sample, your self-concept may become more realistic.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SELF-CONCEPT Now that you have a better idea of how your self-concept has developed, we can take a closer look at some of its characteristics.

The Self-Concept Is Subjective The way we view ourselves may be at odds with others’ perceptions— and often with the observable facts. Sometimes we have unrealistically favorable self-appraisals. One study found that online daters often have a

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Watch and Discuss Look up and watch the “Dove Evolution Commercial.” 1. Consider how reflected appraisal and social comparison are at work in this piece. 2. Discuss the role of media models in shaping self-images.

“foggy mirror”—that is, they see themselves more positively than others do (Ellison et al., 2006). As another example, people are notoriously bad judges of their own communication skills. In one study, there was no relationship between the subjects’ self-evaluations as interpersonal communicators, public speakers, or listeners and their observed ability to perform well in any of these areas (Carrell & Willmington, 1996). In another study (Myers, 1980), college students were asked to rank themselves on their ability to get along with others. Defying mathematical laws, all subjects—every last one of more than 800,000—put themselves in the top half of the population. A total of 60 percent rated themselves in the top 10 percent of the population, and an amazing 25 percent believed they were in the top 1 percent. These students had similarly lofty appraisals of their leadership and athletic abilities. There are also times when we view ourselves more harshly than the facts warrant. We have all experienced a temporary case of the “uglies,” convinced we look much worse than others would say we appear. Although everyone suffers occasional bouts of low self-esteem, some people suffer from long-term or even permanent states of excessive self-doubt and criticism (Wood et al., 2009). This chronic condition can of course influence communication with others. Self-evaluations can be distorted for several reasons: • Obsolete information. The effects of past failures in school or social relations can linger long after they have occurred, even though such events don’t predict failure in the future. Likewise, your past successes don’t guarantee future success. • Distorted feedback. The remarks of overly critical parents, cruel classmates, uncaring teachers, excessively demanding employers, or even rude strangers can have a lasting effect. Other distorted messages are unrealistically positive. For instance, a child’s inflated ego may be based on the praise of doting parents, and a boss’s inflated ego may come from the praise of brownnosing subordinates. • Perfectionism. From the time most of us learn to understand language, we are exposed to models who appear to be perfect. The implicit message is “A well-adjusted, successful person has no faults.” The naive belief in perfection—either our own or others’—can distort the self-concept. • Social expectations. Curiously, our perfectionist society generally rewards those who downplay their strengths. We usually consider those who show off their strengths to be braggarts or egotists, confusing them with people who boast about accomplishments they do not possess (Miller et al., 1992). This convention leads many people to talk freely about (and dwell on) their shortcomings while downplaying their accomplishments.

A Healthy Self-Concept Is Flexible People change. Shy children might turn into outgoing adults. Moody teenagers can become upbeat professionals. People also change from context to context. You might be a relaxed conversationalist with people you

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

know but at a loss for words with strangers. The self-concepts of most communicators react to these changes (“I’m patient at work,” “I’m not patient at home”), and these changes affect self-esteem (“I’m not as good a person at home as I am in the office”). Think back to your list of selfdescriptions from the exercise at the beginning of the chapter. How many were true of you 5 to 10 years ago? Which do you think will still be true 5 to 10 years from now? It’s helpful for communicators to take stock of themselves now and then and acknowledge changes to their self-concept. But that’s not always easy, as we’ll see.

The Self-Concept Resists Change

Media Clip

Reflecting Years of Appraisal:

To be realistic, a self-concept should reflect ThisIs Us the way we change over time, but it often does not. We resist revising it and even seek The time-hopping TV series This Is Us offers a unique out people who confirm how we see ouropportunity to witness how interpersonal messages selves. Numerous studies (e.g., Rehman shape self-concepts. Some scenes focus on the paret al., 2009; Stets & Cast, 2007) have shown enting of Jack and Rebecca Pearson (Milo Ventimithat both college students and married couglia and Mandy Moore) as they raise their children at ples with high self-esteem seek out partners the end of the 20th century. Other times the series who view them favorably, whereas those moves to present day, revealing how those children with low self-esteem are more inclined to turned out in their late 30s. interact with people who view them unfaIn flashback sequences, we see how messages vorably. This tendency to seek confirmation about weight have haunted Kate (Chrissy Metz) most of an existing self-concept, labeled cognitive of her life. Randall (Sterling K. Brown) struggles to conservatism, appears to hold true for people find his identity as a black child growing up in a white in a variety of cultures (Church et al., 2012). family. And because his siblings seem to get the lion’s We are understandably reluctant to share of attention, Kevin (Justin Hartley) constantly revise a favorable self-perception (DeMarcraves a spotlight of his own. All of these issues carry ree et al., 2011). If you were a thoughtful, forward to adulthood—and the Pearson children deromantic partner early in a relationship, velop various ways to refine their self-concepts and it would be hard to admit that you might have become less considerate and attentive maintain their self-esteem. lately. Likewise, if you used to be a seriThe show demonstrates that while biology plays a ous student, acknowledging that you have role in who a person becomes, messages from signifislacked off isn’t easy. cant others also have a profound impact. Curiously, the tendency to cling to an outmoded self-perception holds even when the new image would be more favorable (DeMarree et al., 2010). For example, some of our former students still view themselves as underachievers despite being successful on several measures. Some people have difficulty receiving and believing compliments about who they have become (Kille

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

et al., 2017). The tragedy of this sort of cognitive conservatism is obvious. People with unnecessarily negative self-esteem can become their own worst enemies, denying themselves the validation they deserve and the need to enjoy satisfying relationships. If you’re in need of a self-concept change, the best prescription is to surround yourself with significant others who offer you accurate, affirming messages about who you are and who you’re becoming (Dehart et al., 2011). The shift might occur slowly, but over time you’ll likely begin reflecting their appraisals.

THE SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY AND COMMUNICATION Self-concept is such a powerful influence on the personality that it can affect your future behavior and that of others. A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a person’s expectations of an event, and her or his subsequent behavior based on those expectations, make the outcome more likely to occur (Watzlawick, 2005). As you saw in the discussion surrounding Figure 3.1 on page 71, this circular process involves four stages: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Holding an expectation (for yourself or for others) Behaving in accordance with that expectation The expectation coming to pass Reinforcing the original expectation

Let’s use a slightly exaggerated example to illustrate the concept. One morning you read your horoscope, which offers the following prediction: “Today you will meet the person of your dreams, and the two of you will live happily ever after.” Assuming you believe in horoscopes, what will you do? You’ll probably start making plans to go out on the town that night in search of your “dream person.” You’ll dress up, groom yourself well, and carefully evaluate every person you encounter. You’ll also be attentive, charming, witty, polite, and gracious when you end up meeting a good candidate. As a result, that person is likely to be impressed and attracted to you—and lo and behold, the two of you end up living happily ever after. Your conclusion? That horoscope sure had it right! On closer examination, the horoscope—which helped create the Stage 1 expectation—really wasn’t the key to your success. Although it got the ball rolling, you would still be single if you had stayed home that evening. Stage 2—going out on the town and acting charming—was what led your “dream person” to be attracted to you, bringing about the positive results (Stage 3). While it’s tempting to credit the horoscope for the outcome (Stage 4), it’s important to realize that you were responsible for bringing the prediction to pass—hence the term self-fulfilling prophecy. The horoscope story is of course fictional, but research shows that self-fulfilling prophecies operate in real-life situations. To see how, read on.

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

Types of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies There are two types of self-fulfilling prophecies. Self-imposed prophecies occur when your own expectations influence your behavior. You’ve probably had the experience of waking up in a cross mood and saying to yourself, “This will be a bad day.” Once you made such a decision, you may have acted in ways that made it come true (e.g., avoided others, gave curt responses). On the other hand, if you approach the same day with the idea that it could be a good one, you’re likely to communicate in ways that will bring good things to pass. For instance, your expectations going into an interpersonal conflict will influence how you behave—and how the conflict turns out (DiPaola et al., 2010). A second category of self-fulfilling prophecies occurs when one person’s expectations govern another’s actions. The classic example was demonstrated by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson in a study they described in their book Pygmalion in the Classroom (1968; see also Lee et al., 2015). The experimenters told teachers that 20 percent of the children in a certain elementary school showed unusual potential for intellectual growth. The names of the 20 percent were drawn by means of a table of random numbers—much as if they were drawn out of a hat. Eight months later these children showed significantly greater gains in IQ than did the remaining children, who had not been singled out for the teachers’ attention. The change in the teachers’ behavior toward these allegedly “special” children led to changes in their intellectual performance. Among other things, the teachers gave the “smart” students more time to answer questions and provided more feedback to them. These children did better not because they were any more intelligent than their classmates, but because their teachers—significant others—communicated the expectation that they could. Notice that it isn’t just the observer’s belief that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for the person who is the target of the expectations. The observer must communicate that belief verbally or nonverbally for the prediction to have any effect. If parents have faith in their children but the kids aren’t aware of that confidence, they won’t be affected by their parents’ expectations. If a boss has concerns about an employee’s ability to do a job but keeps those worries to herself or himself, the employee won’t be influenced. In this sense, the self-fulfilling prophecies imposed by one person on another are as much a communication phenomenon as a psychological one.

PRESENTING THE SELF So far, you’ve seen how communication shapes the way communicators view themselves. Now it’s time to turn the tables and focus on the topic of impression management—the communication strategies people use to influence how others view them (Metts & Grohskopf, 2003). In the following pages, you will see that many of our messages are aimed at creating desired impressions.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SELVES

The public face we show to the world is often different from the way we view ourselves privately. What differences are there between your public and private selves? What aspects of yourself are and aren’t appropriate to share with others?

To understand why impression management exists, it’s necessary to discuss the notion of self in more detail. It’s a mistake to think of “the self” as if each of us had only one identity. In truth, each of us possesses several selves, some private and others public (Fenigstein, 2009). These selves are often quite different. The perceived self is the person you believe yourself to be in moments of honest self- examination. The perceived self may not be accurate in every respect. For example, you might think you are much more (or less) intelligent than an objective test would measure. Accurate or not, the perceived self is powerful because we believe it reflects who we are. You can call the perceived self “private” because you are unlikely to reveal all of it to another person. For example, you might be reluctant to share some feelings about your appearance (“I think I’m rather unattractive”), your goals (“The most important thing to me is becoming rich”), or your motives (“I care more about myself than about others”). In contrast to the perceived self, the presenting self is a public image—the way we want to appear to others. In most cases the presenting self we seek to create is a socially approved image: diligent student, loving partner, conscientious worker, loyal friend, and so on. Sociologist Erving Goffman (1959, 1983) used the word face to describe this socially approved identity, and he coined the term facework to describe the verbal and nonverbal ways in which we act to maintain our own presenting image and the images of others. Goffman argued that each of us can be viewed as a kind of playwright who creates roles that we want others to believe, as well as the performer who acts out those roles. This “playwriting” starts early in life as children interact with their parents (Gerholm, 2011), and it continues into adulthood in both personal and professional settings. Goffman (1983) suggested that each of us maintains face by putting on a front when we are around others whom we want to impress. In contrast, behavior in the back region—when we are alone—may be quite different. You can recognize the difference between front and backstage behavior by recalling a time when you observed a driver, alone in her or his car, behaving in ways that would never be acceptable in public. All of us engage in backstage ways of acting that we would never exhibit in front of others. Just think of how you behave in front of the bathroom mirror when the door is locked, and you will appreciate the difference between public and private behavior. If you knew someone was watching, would you behave differently?

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT Now that you have a sense of what impression management is, it’s time to look at some characteristics of this process.

We Strive to Construct Multiple Identities It is an oversimplification to suggest we use impression management strategies to create just one identity. In the course of even a single day, most people play a variety of roles: “respectful student,” “joking friend,” “kind neighbor,” and “helpful worker,” to suggest just a few. Even within one relationship, we play a variety of roles. As you grew up, you almost certainly changed characters as you interacted with your parents. In one context you acted as the responsible adult (“You can trust me with thecar!”), and at another time you were the helpless child (“I can’t find my socks!”). Likewise, in romantic relationships, we switch among many ways of behaving, depending on the context: friend, lover, business partner, critic, and so on. Each of us constructs multiple identities, many of which may be independent or even conflicting (Spears, 2001). For example, some studentathletes experience tension when the roles of student and athlete seem to have incompatible demands (Yopyk & Prentice, 2005). Most of us seek to be perceived as warm (friendly, trustworthy) and competent (intelligent, skillful), yet we may see these two impressions as incompatible (Holoien & Fiske, 2013). Thus, people often “play dumb” when the goal is to be liked, and they become overly critical when the goal is to look smart. Balancing these two impressions is a skillful act. It’s tempting to regard some of your identities as more “real” than others, but it’s more accurate to recognize that all of them are you in various roles. You may not enjoy brownnosing the boss or placating an angry customer, but that doesn’t make those behaviors “not you.” Instead, it means you’re playing the role of “respectful employee” or “dedicated server” in ways that you (and perhaps society) deem appropriate. Communication researchers argue that differentiating between “fake” and “real” selves is counterproductive (Tracy & Trethewey, 2005). Instead, it’s healthier to recognize that competent communicators are multifaceted people with a variety of roles and identities—all of which are “you.”

Impression Management Is Collaborative As we perform our multiple identities, our audience is made up of other actors who are trying to create their own characters. Identity-related communication is a kind of improvisation in which our character reacts with others. Good-natured teasing only works if the other person appreciates your humor and responds well. (Imagine how your kidding would fall flat if somebody didn’t get or enjoy the joke.) Likewise, being a successful romantic can succeed only if the object of your affections plays his or her part.

Impression Management Can Be Deliberate or Unconscious There’s no doubt that sometimes we are highly aware of managing our identities. Most job interviews and first dates are clear examples of deliberate impression management. But in other cases we unconsciously act in ways that

Impression management is part of living in a society. The challenge is making sure the public self you construct is consistent with your values and beliefs. How satisfied are you with the identities you have created? Are there better ways to manage impressions about yourself?

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

are performances for others. For example, in a classic experiment participants expressed facial disgust in reaction to eating sandwiches laced with saltwater only when there was another person present; when they were alone, they made no faces (Brightman et al., 1975). Another study showed that communicators engage in facial mimicry (such as smiling or looking sympathetic in response to another’s message) only in face-to-face settings, when their expressions can be seen by the other person. When they are speaking over the phone and their reactions cannot be seen, they do not make the same expressions (Chovil, 1991). Studies such as these suggest that much of our behavior is aimed at sending messages to others—in other words, impression management. It would be an exaggeration to suggest that all behavior is aimed at making impressions. Young children certainly aren’t strategic communicators. A baby spontaneously laughs when pleased and cries when sad or uncomfortable, without any notion of creating an impression. Likewise, there are almost certainly times when we, as adults, act spontaneously. On the whole, however, impression management strategies influence our communication.

FACE-TO-FACE IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT In face-to-face interaction, communicators can manage their front in three ways: manner, appearance, and setting. Manner consists of a communicator’s words and nonverbal actions. In Chapters 5 and 6, we describe in detail how what you say and do create impressions. Because you have to speak and act, the question isn’t whether your manner sends a message; rather, it’s whether these messages will be intentional. A second dimension of impression management is appearance—the personal items people use to shape an image. Sometimes clothing is part of creating a professional image. A physician’s white lab coat and a police officer’s uniform set the wearer apart as someone special. In the business world, a tailored suit creates a very different impression from a rumpled outfit. Off the job, clothing is just as important. People dressed in uppermiddle-class fashion have a very different experience shopping than those in lower-class fashion (Aliakbari & Abdolahi, 2013). We choose clothing that sends a message about ourselves: “I’m wealthy,” “I’m stylish,” “I’m sexy,” “I’m athletic,” and a host of other possible messages. A final way to manage impressions is through the choice of setting— physical items we use to influence how others view us. Cars are one example. A sporty convertible or fancy imported sedan doesn’t just get drivers from one place to another; it also makes statements about the kind of people they are. The physical setting we choose and the way we arrange it are other important ways to manage impressions. How do you decorate your living space? What artwork is on your walls? What music do you play? If possible, we choose a setting that we enjoy, but in many cases we create an environment that will present the desired front to others.

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL MEDIA Impression management is just as pervasive and important in mediated communication as in face-to-face interaction. At first glance, social media

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

@work

Impression Management in the Workplace

Some advisors encourage workers to “just be yourself” on the job. But there are times when disclosing certain information about your personal life can damage your chances for success (Connell, 2012). This is especially true for people with “invisible stigmas”—traits that run the risk of being viewed unfavorably (Butler & Modaff, 2016). Many parts of a worker’s identity have the potential to be invisible stigmas: religion (evangelical Christian, Muslim), sexual orientation (gay, lesbian, bisexual), or health (bipolar, HIV positive). What counts as a stigma to some people (liberal, conservative) might be favored in another organization (Ragins & Singh, 2007). As you consider how to manage your identity at work, take the following into account: • Proceed with caution. In an ideal world, it would be safe to reveal ourselves without hesitation.

But in real life, total candor can have consequences, so it may be best to move slowly. • Assess the organization’s culture. If your workplace seems supportive of differences—and especially if it appears to welcome people like you—then revealing more of yourself may besafe. • Consider the consequences of not opening up. Keeping an important part of your identity secret can also take an emotional toll (Pachankis, 2007). If staying quiet is truly necessary, you may be better off finding a more welcoming place to work. • Test the waters. If you have a trusted colleague or manager, think about revealing yourself to that person and asking advice about whether and how to go further. But realize that secrets can be leaked, so be sure the person you approach can keep confidences.

seem to limit the potential for impression management. Texting and email, for example, appear to lack the “richness” of other channels. They don’t convey the tone of your voice, postures, gestures, or facial expressions. However, what is missing in mediated messages can actually be an advantage for communicators who want to manage the impressions they make (Bazarova et al., 2012). For instance, emailers and texters can choose the desired level of clarity or ambiguity, seriousness or humor, logic or emotion in their messages. And as you learned in Chapter 1, the asynchronicity of most digital correspondence allows a sender to say difficult things without forcing the receiver to respond immediately, permitting the receiver to ignore a message rather than give an unpleasant response. Options like these show that social media can serve as a tool for impression management at least as well as the face-to-face variety (Tong & Walther, 2011b). Part of Snapchat’s appeal is that it involves less impression management, because its photos vanish after a few seconds. Social media analyst Jean Twenge says this is appealing to teens who think, “If I make a funny face or use one of the filters to make myself look like a dog, it’s going to disappear. Itwon’t be something permanent my enemies at school can troll me about” (Stein, 2017).

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Media Clip

The Promise and Perils of OnlineRelationships: Catfish: TheTV Show Nev Schulman knows what it’s like to be in an online romance with a virtual stranger. The documentary Catfish chronicled his introduction to online relationships, and now, in this TV series, he wants to help others navigate those challenges. The face-to-face encounters that Nev and his cohost, Max Joseph, arrange usually involve surprises. That’s because the romantic partners’ online personas typically don’t match their real-life identities. Sometimes the “catfishers” have a different age, gender, or appearance from what they present on social media. But even when they’ve been truthful, the partners often have trouble interacting in person after months or years of impression management through digital media. Video chat tools such as FaceTime and Skype would seem to make catfishing outmoded. But the show still offers plenty of examples of people who fall in love via text-based messages and voice calls, without ever seeing their partners. This demonstrates the power of words in creating intimacy—and also that some people have an easier time forging a relationship with an illusion than with a real person.

Social networking platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram all provide opportunities for their creators to manage impressions (Bowman, 2015; Hall et al., 2014). Consider how featuring or withholding the following kinds of information affects how others might regard your online profile: age, personal photo, educational or career accomplishments, sexual orientation, job title, personal interests, personal philosophy and religious beliefs, and organizations to which you belong (Doster, 2013). One study analyzed the Instagram feeds of 27 professional athletes and noted how they carefully presented themselves according to societal gender norms (Smith & Sanderson, 2015). But social media can also offer opportunities for transgender individuals to forge and manage their gender identities (Cavalcante, 2016). When undergraduate Facebook users were asked how they think they come across in their profiles (Toma & Carlson, 2015), most acknowledged that their selfpresentations are highly positive—but not too positive. In general, they believed their profiles portrayed them as better than reality on certain dimensions (e.g., “funny,” “adventurous,” “outgoing”), accurately on other dimensions (e.g., “physically attractive,” “creative”), and worse than reality on yet other dimensions (e.g., “intelligent,” “polite,” “reliable”). It appears that the participants realized—perhaps intuitively— that their Facebook sites are an exercise in impression management. Viewing your online presence from another perspective can be a valuable impression management exercise. Enter your name in a search engine and see what pops up. You may decide it’s time to engage in what researchers call “reputation management” (Madden & Smith, 2010). Perhaps you’ll want to change privacy settings on your profiles, customize who can see certain updates, and delete unwanted information about yourself.

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT AND HONESTY At first, impression management might sound like an academic label for manipulation or phoniness. There certainly are situations where people misrepresent themselves to gain the trust of others (Rui & Stefanone, 2013; Whitty, 2007). A manipulative date who pretends to be affectionate to gain sexual favors is clearly unethical and deceitful. So are job applicants who lie about their academic records to get hired or salespeople who pretend to be dedicated to customer service when their real goal is to make a quick buck. Online deception is common—indeed, many believe that “everyone lies on the internet” (Drouin et al., 2016). In one survey, 27 percent of respondents had engaged in deceptive behaviors while online (Lenhart et al., 2001), and a diary study found that 22 percent to 25 percent of mediated interactions involve deception (George & Robb, 2008). A quarter of teens have pretended to be a different person online, and a third confess they have given false information about themselves while emailing, IMing, or game playing. Even the selection of an avatar can involve deception (Galanxhi & Nah, 2007). And it’s not unusual for people to adopt different gender identities online (Guadagno et al., 2012). Some of these deceptions are relatively harmless, but others have serious consequences. Notre Dame football star Manti Te’o was duped in an internet hoax that led to national embarrassment (Jonsson, 2013), and Catfish: The TV Show chronicles what happens when online partners discover they’ve been deceived (see the Media Clip sidebar in this section). Interviewees in one study (Toma et al., 2008) acknowledged the delicate task of balancing an ideal online identity against the “real” self behind their profile. Many admitted they sometimes fudged facts about themselves—using outdated photos or “forgetting” information about their age, for instance. But respondents were less tolerant when prospective dates posted inaccurate identities. For example, one date-seeker expressed resentment upon learning that a purported “hiker” hadn’t hiked in years. Ultimately, online daters are skeptical of profiles that seem too good to be true. Candidates who present themselves in honest and even humble ways are generally perceived as more attractive than those who

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

come off as braggers (Wotipka & High, 2016). A little impression management and self-promotion is okay, but too much can raise red flags (Heck& Krueger, 2016). These examples raise important ethical questions about impression management. Is it okay to omit certain information in an online dating service in an attempt to put your best foot forward? In a job interview, is it legitimate to act more confident and reasonable than you really feel? Likewise, are you justified in acting attentive in a boring conversation out of courtesy to the other person? Is it sometimes wise to use false names and information on the internet for your protection and security? Situations like these suggest that managing impressions doesn’t necessarily make you a liar. In fact, it is almost impossible to imagine how we could communicate effectively without making decisions about which front to present in one situation or another. Each of us has a repertoire of faces—a cast of characters—and part of being a competent communicator is choosing the best role for a situation. Imagine yourself in each of the following situations, and choose the most effective way you could act, considering the options: • You offer to teach a friend a new skill, such as playing the guitar, operating a computer program, or sharpening up a tennis backhand. Your friend is making slow progress with the skill, and you find yourself growing impatient. • You’ve been corresponding for several weeks with someone you met online, and the relationship is starting to turn romantic. You have a physical trait that you haven’t mentioned. • At work you face a belligerent customer. You don’t believe that anyone has the right to treat you this way. In each of these situations—and in countless others every day—you have a choice about how to act. It is an oversimplification to say that there is only one honest way to behave in each circumstance and that every other response would be insincere and dishonest. Instead, impression management involves deciding which face—which part of yourself—to reveal.

DISCLOSING THE SELF What we choose to disclose about ourselves is an important component of impression management. So what constitutes self-disclosure? You might argue that aside from secrets, it’s impossible not to make yourself known to others. After all, every time you post online or speak, you’re revealing your tastes, interests, desires, opinions, beliefs, or some other bit of information about yourself. In addition, Chapter 6 explains how each of us communicates nonverbally. If every verbal and nonverbal behavior in which you engage is self- revealing, how can self-disclosure be distinguished from any other act of communication? Psychologist Paul Cozby (1973) offers an answer. He suggests that for a communication act to be considered self-disclosing, (1) it must contain personal information about the sender, (2) the sender must communicate this information verbally, and (3) another person must be the target. Put differently, the subject of self-disclosing communication is the

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

self, and information about the self is purposefully communicated to another person.

SELF-DISCLOSURE FACTORS Although this definition is a start, it ignores the fact that some messages intentionally directed toward others are not especially revealing. For example, telling an acquaintance “I don’t like clams” is quite different from announcing “I don’t like you.” Let’s take a look at several factors that further distinguish self- disclosure from other types of communication.

Honesty It almost goes without saying that true self-disclosure has to be honest. It’s not revealing to say, “I’ve never felt this way about anyone before” to every Saturday night date, or to preface every lie with the statement, “Let me be honest. . . .” As long as you are honest and accurate to the best of your knowledge, communication can qualify as an act of self-disclosure. On the other hand, painting an incomplete picture of yourself (telling only part of what’s true) is not genuine disclosure. You’ll read more about the relationship between honesty and disclosure later in this chapter.

Depth A self-disclosing statement is generally regarded as being personal— containing relatively “deep” rather than “surface” information. Of course, what is personal and intimate for one person may not be for another. You might feel comfortable admitting your spotty academic record, short temper, or fear of spiders to anyone who asks, whereas others would be embarrassed to do so. Even basic demographic information, such as age, can be extremely revealing for some people.

Availability of Information Self-disclosing messages must contain information that the other person is not likely to know at the time or be able to obtain from another source. For example, describing your conviction for a drunk-driving accident might feel like an act of serious disclosure because the information concerns you, is offered intentionally, is honest and accurate, and is considered personal. However, if the other person could obtain that information elsewhere without much trouble—from a quick check on the internet or from various gossips, for example—your communication would not be especially self-disclosing.

Opening up offers both risks and benefits. What parts of your identity might you disclose to others? How could you explore whether doing so is safe?

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Context of Sharing Sometimes the self-disclosing nature of a statement comes from the setting in which it is uttered. For instance, relatively innocuous information about family life seems more personal when a student shares it with the class (Frisby & Sidelinger, 2013), when an athlete tells it to her coach (Officer & Rosenfeld, 1985), or when it’s shared online (Jiang et al., 2013). We can summarize our definitional tour by saying that self-disclosure (1) has the self as subject, (2) is intentional, (3) is directed at another person, (4) is honest, (5) is revealing, (6) contains information generally unavailable from other sources, and (7) gains much of its intimate nature from the context in which it is expressed. Although many acts of communication may be self-revealing, this definition makes it clear that few of our statements may be classified as selfdisclosure. Most conversations—even among friends—focus on everyday, mundane topics and disclose little or no personal information (Dindia et al., 1997). Even partners in intimate relationships don’t talk about personal matters with a high degree of frequency (Laliker & Lannutti, 2014).

MODELS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE Now that you have a basic notion of what self-disclosure is, let’s take a look at two models that help us better understand how it operates in relationships.

Degrees of Self-Disclosure: The Social Penetration Model Social psychologists Dalmas Taylor and Irwin Altman (1987) created the social penetration model, which describes relationships in terms of breadth and depth of self-disclosure. Figure 3.2 pictures a student’s self-disclosure

My career ambitions

Feelings about my physical appearance

Feelings about our relationship

Depth

My opinions about our mutual friends

FIGURE 3.2 Sample Model of Social Penetration

Breadth

My relationships with members of the opposite sex

My academic life

My family background and problems

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

in one relationship as an example. The first dimension of self-disclosure in this model involves the breadth of information volunteered—the range of subjects being discussed. For example, the breadth of disclosure in your relationship with a fellow worker will expand as you begin revealing information about your life away from the job as well as on-the-job details. The second dimension of disclosure is the depth of the information being volunteered— the shift from relatively impersonal messages to more personal ones. Depending on the breadth and depth of information shared, a relationship can be defined as casual or intimate. In a casual relationship, the breadth may be great, but not the depth. A more intimate relationship is likely to have high depth in at least one area. The most intimate relationships are those in which disclosure is great in both breadth and depth. Altman and Taylor (1973) see the development of a relationship as a progression from the periphery of their model to its center, a process that typically occurs over time. Each of your personal relationships probably has a different combination of breadth of subjects and depth ofrevelation. One way to classify the depth of disclosure is to look at the types of information that can be revealed. Clichés are ritualized, stock responses to social situations—virtually the opposite of self-disclosure: “How are you doing?” “Fine.” Although hardly revealing, clichés can serve as a valuable kind of shorthand that makes it easy to keep the social wheels greased. Another kind of message involves communicating facts. Not all factual statements qualify as self-disclosure. To qualify they must fit the criteria of being intentional, significant, and not otherwise known: “This isn’t my first try at college. I dropped out a year ago with terrible grades.” Disclosing personal facts like these often signals a desire to move a relationship to a deeper level of intimacy. Opinions can be a kind of self-disclosure because they often reveal more about a person than facts alone do. Every time you offer a personal opinion (such as your political or religious beliefs, or an analysis of another person), you are giving others valuable information about yourself. The fourth level of self-disclosure—and usually the most revealing one—involves the expression of feelings. At first glance, feelings might appear to be the same as opinions, but there’s a big difference. “I don’t think you’re telling me about what’s on your mind” is an opinion. Notice how much more we learn about the speaker by looking at three different feelings that could accompany this statement: “I don’t think you’re telling me what’s on your mind . . . and I’m suspicious.” and I’m angry.” and I’m hurt.”

Awareness of Self-Disclosure: The Johari Window Model Another way to illustrate how self-disclosure operates in communication is to look at a model called the Johari Window, developed by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham (Janas, 2001; Luft, 1969). Imagine a frame that contains everything there is to know about you: your likes and dislikes, your goals, your secrets, your needs—everything.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N Known to self

Known to others

Not known to others

1 OPEN

3 HIDDEN

FIGURE 3.3 Johari Window

This frame could be divided into information you know about yourself and things you don’t know. It could also be split into things others know about you and things they don’t know. Figure 3.3 reflects 2 BLIND these divisions. Part 1 represents the information of which both you and the other person are aware. This part 4 is your open area. Part 2 represents the blind area: UNKNOWN information of which you are unaware but that the other person knows. You learn about information in the blind area primarily through feedback from others. Part 3 of the Johari Window represents your hidden area: information that you know but aren’t willing to reveal to others. Items in this hidden area become public primarily through self-disclosure, which is the focus of this section. Part 4 of the Johari Window represents information that is unknown to both you and to others. We can deduce its existence because we are constantly discovering new things about ourselves. For example, it is not unusual to discover that you have an unrecognized talent, strength, or weakness. Items move from the unknown area into the open area when you share your insight, or into the hidden area, where it becomes a secret. The relative size of each area in our personal Johari Windows changes from time to time according to our moods, the subject we are discussing, and our relationship with the other person. Despite these changes, a single Johari Window could represent most people’s overall style of disclosure. Not known to self

BENEFITS AND RISKS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE By now it should be clear that neither all-out disclosure nor complete privacy is desirable. On one hand, self-disclosure is a key factor in relational development, and relationships suffer when people keep important information from one another (Erwin & Pressler, 2011). On the other hand, revealing deeply personal information can threaten the stability—or even the survival—of a relationship. Communication researchers use the term privacy management to describe the choices people make to reveal or conceal information about themselves (Bridge & Schrodt, 2013; Petronio, 2007). In the following pages, we outline both the benefits and risks of opening yourself to others.

Benefits of Disclosure Modern culture, at least in the United States, places high value on selfdisclosure (Marshall, 2008). There are a variety of reasons for selfdisclosing (Duprez et al., 2015). Catharsis Sometimes you might disclose information in an effort to “get

it off your chest.” Catharsis can indeed relieve the burden of pent-up emotions (Pennebaker, 1997), whether face-to-face or online (Vilhauer, 2009)—but when it’s the only goal of disclosure, the results of opening up may not be good. Later in this chapter, you’ll read guidelines for disclosing that increase the odds that you can achieve catharsis in a way that helps, instead of harming, relationships.

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

Self-Clarification It is often possible to clarify your beliefs, opinions,

thoughts, attitudes, and feelings by talking about them with another person. This sort of gaining insight by “talking the problem out” occurs in many psychotherapies, but it also goes on in other relationships ranging from good friends to interaction with bartenders or hairstylists. Self-Validation If you disclose information with the hope of seeking the

listener’s agreement (“I think I did the right thing”), you are seeking validation of your behavior—confirmation of a belief you hold about yourself. On a deeper level, this sort of self-validating disclosure seeks confirmation of important parts of your self-concept. For instance, self-validation is an important part of the “coming out” process through which LGBTQ people recognize their sexual orientation and choose to disclose this knowledge in their personal, family, and social lives (Manning, 2015). ReciprocityA well-documented conclusion from research is that one per-

son’s act of self-disclosure increases the odds that the other person will reveal personal information (Sprecher et al., 2013). There is no guarantee that revealing personal information will trigger self-disclosures by others, but your own honesty can create a climate that makes the other person feel safer and perhaps even obligated to match your level of candor (“I’ve been bored with our relationship lately” might get a response of “Wow, me too!”). Reciprocity applies online as well as in person. It’s one of the reasons for the success of online support groups, where people often feel safe to disclose once they’ve read what others have shared (Lewallen et al., 2014). Impression FormationSometimes we reveal personal information to make

ourselves more attractive, and research shows that this strategy seems to work. One study revealed that both men’s and women’s attractiveness was associated with the amount of self-disclosure in conversations (Stiles et al., 1996). Consider a couple on their first date. It’s not hard to imagine how one or both partners might share personal information to appear more sincere, interesting, sensitive, or curious about the other person. The same principle applies in other situations. A salesperson might say, “I’ll be honest with you” primarily to show that she or he is on your side. Relationship Maintenance and EnhancementResearch demonstrates that

we like people who disclose personal information to us. In fact, the relationship between self-disclosure and liking works in several directions: We like people who disclose personal information to us; we reveal more about ourselves to people we like; and we tend to like others more after we have disclosed to them (Dindia, 2000b, 2002). Appropriate self-disclosure is positively related to marital satisfaction (Hess et al., 2007). Disclosing spouses give their relationships higher evaluations and have more positive expectations than do partners who disclose less (MacNeil & Byers, 2009). And studies have demonstrated that increased self-disclosure can improve troubled marriages (Laurenceau et al., 2005). With the guidance of a skilled counselor or therapist, partners can learn constructive ways to open up.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Moral Obligation Sometimes we disclose per-

DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION

Talking Frankly About STDs STD is an acronym that strikes fear in many, and it’s often unmentioned in “polite company.” But sexually transmitted diseases are a serious health issue, and talking about them candidly is an important component of responsible communication. Here are some quick facts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/std): • An estimated 110 million people in the United States have an STD, with 20 million new infections annually. • Three STDs in particular—chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis—have been on the rise among young people in recent years. • STDs can result in pain, cancer, infertility, dementia, and even death. The CDC recommends “open and honest conversation” between sexual partners as a preventive measure. Communication researchers agree, but they know it’s easier said than done. One study (Horan, 2016) found that 60 percent of sexually active college students had “acted deceptively” about disclosing their sexual history, even though most said they knew better. Students in another study who measured high in privacy concerns rarely if ever talked about their sexual history with partners (Nichols, 2012). These nondisclosers said their sexual history is “not information their partners were entitled to know”(p. 110). An alternative to discussing sexual history is to ensure that both partners have been tested for STDs. HealthFinder.gov suggests phrases for approaching this delicate matter: “I really care about you and want to make sure we are both healthy”; “We can enjoy sex more if we know it’s safe”; and “I’ve been tested for STDs—are you willing to do the same for me?” It might be uncomfortable to start a conversation on such a personal matter, but as the CDC notes, “protecting your health is your responsibility.”

sonal information out of a sense of moral obligation. People who are HIV-positive, for example, are often faced with the choice of whether they should tell their health care providers and their partner. One study (Agne et al., 2000) found that patients typically did disclose their HIV status to their health care provider because they felt it was the responsible thing to do for themselves (to help fight their illness) and to protect the provider. Another study (Derlega et al., 2000) found that people who are HIV positive often see disclosing their status “as a duty” and as a way to educate the partner—as an obligation. See the Dark Sidesidebar on this page about self-disclosure and STDs.

Risks of Self-Disclosure Although the benefits of disclosing are certainly important, opening up can also involve risks that make the decision to disclose a difficult and sometimes painful one (Afifi & Caughlin, 2007). The risks of self-disclosure fall into several categories (Greene et al., 2006; Rosenfeld, 2000). Rejection In answering the question that

forms the title of his book, Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am?, John Powell (1969) summed up the risks of disclosing: “I am afraid to tell you who I am because if I tell you who I am, you may not like who I am, and that’s all I have.” The fear of disapproval is powerful. Sometimes it is exaggerated and illogical, but there are real dangers in revealing personal information: A: I’m starting to think of you as more than a friend. To tell the truth, I think I love you. B: I think we should stop seeing each other. if disclosure doesn’t lead to total rejection, it can create a negative impression: Negative

Impression Even

A: You know, I’ve never had a relationship with a woman that lasted more than a month. B: Really? I wonder what that says about you.

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

Decrease in Relational SatisfactionBesides affect-

ing others’ opinions of you, disclosure can lead to a decrease in the satisfaction that comes from a relationship. Consider a scenario such as this where the incompatible wants and needs of each person become clear through disclosure: A: Let’s get together with Miguel and Jake on Saturday night. B: To tell you the truth, I’m tired of seeing Miguel and Jake. I don’t have much fun with them, and I think Jake is kind of a jerk. A: But they’re my best friends! Loss of InfluenceAnother risk of disclosure is a po-

tential loss of influence in the relationship. Once you confess a secret weakness, your control over how the other person views you can be diminished: A: I’m sorry I was so sarcastic. Sometimes I build myself up by putting you down. B: Is that it? I’ll never let you get away with that again! Loss of ControlRevealing something personal about yourself means losing

control of the information. What might happen if the person tells others what you disclosed, people you prefer not know, or whom you would like to tell yourself? One study (Venetis et al., 2012) found that even solemn pledges from others to maintain your secret are often not kept. A: I never really liked Leslie. I agreed to go out because it meant a good meal in a nice restaurant. B: Really? Leslie would sure like to know that! Hurting the Other PersonEven if revealing hidden information leaves you

feeling better, it might hurt or upset others. It’s probably easy to imagine yourself in a situation like this: A: Well, since you asked, I have felt less attracted to you lately. I know you can’t help it when your skin breaks out, but it is kind of a turnoff. B: I know! I don’t see how you can stand me at all!

GUIDELINES FOR SELF-DISCLOSURE Self-disclosure is a special kind of sharing that is not appropriate for every situation. Here are guidelines to help you recognize how to express yourself in a way that’s rewarding for you and for the others involved (Derlega et al., 2011; Greene et al., 2006).

Is the Other Person Important to You? There are several ways in which someone might be important. Perhaps you have an ongoing relationship deep enough so that sharing significant parts

In his video blogs (such as Whine About It and To Be Honest), Matt Bellassai humorously describes how nice it would be to say whatever he wants, regardless of how it affects others. Are there times when you wish you could say what you’re thinking without inhibition? What would be the interpersonal consequences of doing do?

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

of yourself justifies keeping your present level of togetherness intact. Perhaps the person to whom you’re considering disclosing is someone with whom you’ve previously related on a less personal level. Now you see a chance to grow closer, and disclosure may be the path toward developing that personal relationship.

Is the Risk of Disclosing Reasonable?

On her album Lemonade, superstar Beyoncé disclosed feelings of betrayal, jealousy, and rage surrounding her troubled marriage to rapper Jay Z. While some viewed it as an airing of dirty laundry, most saw it as honest, assertive, and cathartic. Have you ever considered going public with painful feelings? Has your silence been the best choice?

Most people intuitively calculate the potential benefits of disclosing against the risks of doing so (Afifi& Steuber, 2009). Even if the probable benefits are great, opening yourself up to almost certain rejection may be asking for trouble. For instance, it might be foolhardy to share your important feelings with someone you know is likely to betray your confidences or ridicule them. On the other hand, knowing that your partner will respect the information makes the prospect of speaking out more reasonable. This is true in both personal and professional relationships. See the At Work sidebar on page 81 for a discussion of the potential risks of revealing personal information on the job.

Is the Self-Disclosure Appropriate? Some people have trouble with what’s popularly known as “TMI”—that is, sharing “too much information” (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009). In general, it’s wise not to divulge personal secrets with strangers, on public social media postings, or in classroom discussions (Frisby & Sidelinger, 2013). Even students who appreciate self-disclosure from their teachers acknowledge that they don’t want to hear too much, too often about their instructors’ personal lives (Myers & Brann, 2009). Of course, it’s also possible to withhold too much information—perhaps in a marital counseling session or at a doctor’s appointment. The key is to recognize that there’s a time and a place for engaging in, and refraining from, self-disclosure.

Is the Disclosure Reciprocated? There’s nothing quite as disconcerting as talking your heart out to someone, only to discover that the other person has yet to say anything to you that is half as revealing. You think to yourself, “What am I doing?” Unequal self-disclosure creates an unbalanced relationship, one with potential problems. This doesn’t mean that you are obliged to match another person’s revelations. What’s important is that there is an appropriate balance of disclosure for maintaining each party’s investment in the relationship.

Will the Effect Be Constructive? Self-disclosure can be a vicious tool if it’s not used carefully. Every person has a psychological beltline below which some topics can be extremely sensitive. It’s important to consider the effects of your candor before opening up to others. Comments such as “I’ve always thought you were pretty unintelligent”

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

A S S E S S I N G YO U R CO M M U N I C AT I O N

Online and Offline Self-Disclosure Assess your online and face-to-face self-disclosure by rating each of the following statements using a scale ranging from 1 to 7, with 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree.” Consider inviting others who know you well to assess your disclosure by responding to the same statements about you.

When communicating using an online social networking site . . . _____

1. I make frequent posts about myself.

_____ 2. Posts I make about myself are often long and detailed. _____ 3. In posts about myself I let others know openly about who I really am. _____ 4. My posts contain a lot of highly personal information about my thoughts, feelings, relationships, and activities. When communicating face to face . . . _____ 5. I often talk about myself. _____ 6. I usually talk about myself for fairly long periods of time. _____

7. When I talk about myself I let others know openly about who I really am.

_____ 8. My talk about myself contains a lot of highly personal information about my thoughts, feelings, relationships, and activities. Adapted from Bateman, P. J., Pike, J. C., & Butler, B. S. (2011). To disclose or not: Publicness in social networking sites. Information Technology & People, 24, 78–100.

For scoring information, see page 100 at the end of the chapter.

or “Last year I made love to your best friend” may sometimes resolve old business and thus be constructive, but they also can be devastating—to the listener, to the relationship, and to your self-esteem.

ALTERNATIVES TO SELF-DISCLOSURE Although self-disclosure plays an important role in interpersonal relationships, it isn’t the only type of communication available. To understand why complete honesty isn’t always an easy or ideal choice, consider some familiar dilemmas: • You have grown increasingly annoyed with some habits of the person you live with. You fear that bringing up this topic could lead to an unpleasant conversation and maybe even damage the relationship.

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

• Your friend, who is headed out the door for an important job interview, says, “I know I’ll never get this job! I’m really not qualified, and besides I look terrible.” You agree with your friend’s assessment. • You’ve just been given a large, extremely ugly lamp as a gift by a relative who visits your home often. How would you respond to the question, “Where will you put it?” Although honesty is desirable in principle, it often has risky, potentially unpleasant consequences. It’s tempting to sidestep situations in which selfdisclosure would be difficult, but examples like the ones you just read indicate that avoidance isn’t always possible. Research and personal experience show that communicators—even those with the best intentions—aren’t always completely honest when they find themselves in situations when honesty would be uncomfortable (Ennis et al., 2008; Scott, 2010). Four common alternatives to self-disclosure are silence, lying, equivocation, and hinting. Let’s take a closer look at each one.

Silence One alternative to self-disclosure is to keep your thoughts and feelings to yourself. As the cartoon below shows, there are many times when keeping information to yourself can seem like the best approach, both for you and the other person. One study showed that in the workplace, withholding information is often seen as a better alternative than lying or engaging in deception (Dunleavy et al., 2010). You can get a sense of how much you rely on silence instead of disclosing by keeping a record of when you do and don’t express your opinions. You’re likely to find that withholding thoughts and feelings is a common approach for you. Zits: © 2004 Zits Partnership, Dist. by King Features

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

Lying A lie is a deliberate attempt to hide or misrepresent the truth. Lying to gain unfair advantage over an unknowing victim seems clearly wrong, but another kind of mistruth—the “benevolent lie”—isn’t so easy to dismiss as completely unethical. Benevolent lies are defined (at least by the people who tell them) as not being malicious—and perhaps they are even helpful to the person to whom they are told. You can almost certainly recall times when you have been less than truthful to avoid hurting someone you care for (for examples, see Dworkin, 2016). Whether or not they are innocent, benevolent lies are certainly common. In several studies spanning four decades, a significant majority of people surveyed acknowledged that even in their closest relationships, there were times when lying was justified (DePaulo et al., 2009). Whereas many of the lies told to best friends and friends are benevolent, many of those told to acquaintances and strangers are self-serving (Ennis et al., 2008). Table 3.1 identifies various reasons for lying, adapted from Dunbar et al. (2016), Agosta et al. (2013), and other research cited in this section.

TABLE 3.1 Some

Reasons for Lying

Reason

Example

Save face for others

“Don’t worry—I’m sure nobody noticed that stain on your shirt.”

Save face for self

“I wasn’t looking at the files—I was accidentally in the wrong drawer.”

Acquire resources

“Oh, please let me add this class. If I don’t get in, I’ll never graduate on time!”

Protect resources

“I’d like to lend you the money, but I’m short myself.”

Initiate interaction

“Excuse me, I’m lost. Do you live around here?”

Be socially gracious

“No, I’m not bored—tell me more about your vacation.”

Avoid conflict

“It’s not a big deal. We can do it your way. Really.”

Avoid interaction

“That sounds like fun, but I’m busy Saturday night.”

Take leave

“Oh, look what time it is! I’ve got to run!”

Present a competent image

“Sure I understand. No problem.”

Increase social desirability

“Yeah, I’ve done a fair amount of skiing.”

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Not all lies are equally devastating. We may be able to cope with “misdemeanor” lying (such as the ones in Table 3.1), but “felonies” are a serious threat—often leading to the end of a relationship. The lesson here is clear: Lying about major parts of your relationship can have the gravest of consequences. If preserving a relationship is important to you, then honesty—at least about important matters—really does appear to be the best policy. Chapter 9 will have more to say about repairing relationships that have been damaged by lies.

Equivocation There are other alternatives to blatant truth-telling. When faced with difficult disclosure choices, communicators can—and often do—use equivocation: statements that are not literally false but cleverly avoid an unpleasant truth (Bello, 2005). The value of equivocation becomes clear when you consider the alternatives. Consider the dilemma of what to say when you’ve been given an unwanted present—an ugly painting, for example—and the giver asks what you think of it. How can you respond? On one hand, you need to choose between telling the truth and lying. At the same time, you have a choice of whether to make your response clear or vague. Figure 3.4 displays these choices. The underlying point of equivocal messages is usually understood by their recipients. One study (Bello & Edwards, 2005) explored how receivers interpreted equivocal statements, such as a friend calling your speech “interesting” instead of saying “You messed up.” Besides regarding the equivocal statements as more polite, the recipients had no trouble discerning the intended meaning—that the speech was poor, to use our example. Given the advantages of equivocation, it’s not surprising that most people usually will choose to Equivocal equivocate rather than tell a lie. In a series of experiments, subjects chose between telling a face-saving OPTION I: OPTION II: (Equivocal, (Equivocal, lie, the truth, and equivocating (Bavelas et al., True Message) False Message) 1990). Only 6 percent chose the lie, and between “What an unusual “Thanks for the 3 percent and 4 percent chose the hurtful truth. painting! I’ve never painting. I’ll hang By contrast, over 90 percent chose the equivocal seen anything it as soon as I response. People may say they prefer truth-telling like it!” can find just the to equivocating, but given the choice, they usually right place.” False True finesse the truth (Robinson et al., 1998). OPTION III: OPTION IV: Some forms of equivocation rely on telling (Clear, (Clear, partial truths (Rogers et al., 2017). Imagine that True Message) False Message) you had promised to be home right after work but “It’s just not my kind “What a beautiful instead went out for drinks with coworkers. Upon of painting. I don’t painting! I love it.” like the colors, the arriving home late, you might justify your tardistyle, or the subject.” ness by saying, “One of my work friends needed to talk about a personal problem.” Even if your happy hour conversation included such a discussion, this Clear technically honest statement is clearly an act of FIGURE 3.4 Dimensions of Truthfulness and Equivocation deception.

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

Communicators who hedge the truth view this strategy as less ethically suspect than more blatant forms of deception. As one researcher put it (Gino, 2016), telling partial truth “allows them to maintain an image of themselves as honest and trustworthy individuals.” Technically speaking, they reason, no lie was told. But when those on the receiving end of such statements discover the full story, they are just as offended as if they had been the target of an outright falsehood (McGregor, 2017).

Hinting Hints are more direct than equivocal statements. Whereas an equivocal message isn’t necessarily aimed at changing another’s behavior, a hint seeks to get the desired response from the other person. Some hints are designed to save the receiver from embarrassment (Motley, 1992): Direct Statement

Face-Saving Hint

You’re too overweight to be ordering dessert.

These desserts are terribly overpriced.

I’m too busy to continue with this conversation. I wish you would let me go.

I know you’re busy; I’d better let you go.

Other hints are less concerned with protecting the receiver than with saving the sender from embarrassment: Direct Statement

Face-Saving Hint

Please don’t smoke here; it bothers me.

I’m pretty sure that smoking isn’t permitted here.

I’d like to invite you out for lunch, but I don’t want to risk a “no” answer to my invitation.

Gee, it’s almost lunch time. Have you ever eaten at that new Italian restaurant around the corner?

The success of a hint depends on the other person’s ability to pick up the unexpressed message. Your subtle remarks might go right over the head of an insensitive receiver, or one who chooses not to respond to them. One study found that when closeted gays and lesbians made hints about needing social support, their indirect messages were often ignored, and they didn’t get the help they needed (Williams et al., 2016). If you find that your hints aren’t getting through, you have the choice to be more direct or withdraw without risk.

The Ethics of Evasion It’s easy to see why people often choose hints, equivocations, and benevolent lies instead of self-disclosure. These strategies provide a way to manage difficult situations that is easier than the alternatives for both the

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

speaker and the receiver of the message. In this sense, successful liars, equivocators, and hinters can be said to possess a certain kind of communicative competence. On the other hand, there are times when honesty is the right approach, even if it’s painful. At times like these, evaders could be viewed as lacking either the competence or the integrity to handle a situation effectively. Are hints, benevolent lies, and equivocations ethical alternatives to self-disclosure? Some of the examples in these pages suggest the answer is a qualified “yes.” Many social scientists and philosophers agree. For example, researchers David Buller and Judee Burgoon (1994) argue that the morality of a speaker’s motives for lying ought to be judged, not the deceptive act itself. Another approach is to consider whether the effects of a lie will be worth the deception. Ethicist Sissela Bok (1999) offers some circumstances where deception may be justified: doing good, avoiding harm, and protecting a larger truth. One example is when a patient asks, “How am I doing?” If a nurse perceives that telling the truth could be harmful, it would violate the obligation to “do good and avoid harm,” and honesty would be less important than caring (Tuckett, 2005). Perhaps the right questions to ask, then, are whether an indirect message is truly in the interests of the receiver and whether this sort of evasion is the only effective way to behave. Bok suggests another way to check the justifiability of a lie: Imagine how others would respond if they knew what you were really thinking or feeling. Would they accept your reasons for not disclosing?

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING Objective 3.1 Describe how the self-

concept is subjective and is shaped by, and consequently affects, communication with others. The self-concept is a relatively stable set of perceptions individuals hold about themselves. It begins to develop soon after birth, being shaped by the appraisals of significant others and by social comparisons with reference groups. The self-concept is subjective and can vary substantially from the way a person is perceived by others. Although the self may evolve over time, the self-concept resistschange.

A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a person’s expectations of an event and subsequent behavior influence the event’s outcome. One type of prophecy consists of predictions by others, whereas another category is self-imposed. Q: Identify your own self-concept and identify the messages from others that have shaped it. Q: Describe how self-fulfilling prophecies (both self-imposed and from others) affect the ways you communicate.

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

Objective 3.2 Explain how we manage

impressions in person and online to enhance our presenting image. Impression management consists of an individual’s strategic communication designed to influence others’ perceptions. It aims at presenting one or more faces to others, which may be different from private, spontaneous behavior that occurs outside of others’ presence. Communicating through mediated channels can enhance a person’s ability to manage impressions. Because each person has a variety of faces that she or he can reveal, choosing which one to present is a central concern of competent communicators. Q: Describe the various identities you attempt to present to others and the strategies you use (in person and via mediated channels) to construct them.

Objective 3.3 Identify an optimal level of self-disclosure and nondisclosure in effective relationships.

Self-disclosure consists of honest, revealing messages about the self that are intentionally directed toward others. Disclosing communication contains information that is generally unavailable via other sources. The percentage of messages that are truly self-disclosing is relatively low. Anumber of factors govern whether a communicator will be judged as being a high- or low-level discloser.

Two models for describing self-disclosure are the social penetration model and the Johari Window model. The social penetration model describes two dimensions of self-disclosure: breadth and depth. The Johari Window illustrates the amount of information that an individual reveals to others, hides, is blind to, and is unaware of. Communicators disclose personal information for a variety of reasons. There also are several reasons to choose not to self-disclose, some of which serve primarily the interests of the nondiscloser, and others of which are intended to benefit the target. When deciding whether to disclose, communicators should consider a variety of factors detailed in the chapter. Four alternatives to revealing self-disclosures are silence, lies (both benevolent and self-serving), equivocations, and hints. These may be ethical alternatives to self-disclosure; however, whether they are or not depends on the speaker’s motives and the effects of the deception. Q: Use the social penetration model and Johari Window model to represent the level of disclosure involving an important topic in one of your important relationships. Q: Compose responses to a situation that reflect varying degrees of candor and equivocation. Choose the response that seems most appropriate and effective for the situation.

KEY TERMS Benevolent lie (95) Equivocation (96) Face (78) Facework (78) Impression management (77) Johari Window (87) Lie (95)

Perceived self (78) Presenting self (78) Privacy management (88) Reference groups (72) Reflected appraisal (72) Self-concept (70) Self-disclosure (86)

Self-esteem (70) Self-fulfilling prophecy (76) Significant other (72) Social comparison (72) Social penetration model (86)

100

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

ACTIVITIES 1. With a group of classmates, compile a list of reference groups you use to define your self-concepts. You can recognize them by answering several questions: a. Select one area in which you compare yourselves to others. In what area is the comparison made? (For example, is the comparison based on wealth, intelligence, or social skill?) b. In the selected area, ask yourselves, “Which people am I better or worse than?” c. In the selected area, ask yourselves, “Which people am I the same as or different from?”

What is the effect of using these groups as a basis for judging yourselves? How might you view yourselves differently if you used other reference groups as a basis for comparison? 2. Share with your classmates two incidents in which self-fulfilling prophecies you have imposed on yourself have affected your communication. Explain how each of these predictions shaped your behavior, and describe how you might have behaved differently if you had made a different prediction. Next, describe two incidents in which you imposed self-fulfilling prophecies on others. What effect did your prediction have on these people’s actions? 3. As a class, construct a gallery of public and private selves. Each student should fold a piece of paper to create two areas. On the top half, draw

an image to reflect your private self, and write 10 words that describe the most important characteristics of the private self. (Don’t put names on these papers—anonymity is important.) On the bottom half, draw an image that captures the public self you try to show the world, and write 10 words that describe important parts of that public image. Once drawings are finished, display the images in a gallery that all class members can examine. What patterns emerge regarding the similarity or difference between public and private selves? 4. Recall recent situations in which you used each of the following evasive approaches: benevolent lying, equivocating, and hinting. Write an anonymous written description of each situation on a separate sheet of paper. Submit the cases to a panel of “judges” (most likely fellow students) who will use the criteria of justifiable motives and desirable effects to evaluate the morality of this deception. Invite the “judges” to consider how they would feel if they knew someone used these evasive approaches with them. 5. Use the guidelines on pages 91–93 to develop one scenario in which you might reveal a self-disclosing message. Share a message of this type with a group of your classmates and discuss the risks and benefits of sharing the message.

SCORING FOR ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION (PAGE 93)

Add responses to items 1 and 2. This is your Amount of Online Disclosure score: _____. Add responses to items 3 and 4. This is your Depth of Online Disclosure score: _____. Add responses to items 5 and 6. This is your Amount of Face-to-Face Disclosure score: _____. Add responses to items 7 and 8. This is your Depth of Face-to-Face Disclosure score: _____. Amount of Online Disclosure score: Scores above 6 indicate a willingness to disclose more than average when communicating via a social networking site.

C HA P TE R 3 I nterpersonal Communication and the S elf

Depth of Online Disclosure score: Scores above 5 indicate a willingness to disclose at higher levels of depth or intimacy than average when communicating via a social networking site. Amount of Face-to-Face Disclosure score: Scores above 7 indicate a willingness to disclose more than average when communicating face to face. Depth of Face-to-Face Disclosure score: Scores above 6 indicate a willingness to disclose more than average when communicating face to face.

101

4 Perceiving Others LEARNING OBJECTIVES

CHAPTER OUTLINE

4.1

The Perception Process 104

4.2 4.3 4.4

Understand the subjective nature of perceiving interpersonal messages and relationships. Identify the variety of influences on interpersonal perception. Recognize how common tendencies in perception shape interpersonal communication. Use perception checking and adjust attitudes to enhance empathy with communication partners.

FEATURES Focus on Research: Online Channels Affect Perception 108 Watch and Discuss: “All That We Share” 110 At Work: Sexual Harassment and Perception 115 Media Clip: Master of Perception: Sherlock 118 Focus on Research: Hurtful Communication: A Matter of Perception 122 Dark Side of Communication: Distorting Perception: The Gaslight Effect 126 Media Clip: Gaining Empathy: Undercover Boss 128 Assessing Your Communication: Your Empathy Quotient 129

• Reality Is Constructed 104 • Steps in the Perception Process 106

Influences on Perception 110 • Access to Information 110 • Physiological Influences 110 • Psychological Influences 112 • Social Influences 113 • Cultural Influences 117

Common Tendencies in Perception 118 • We Make Snap Judgments 119 • We Cling to First Impressions 120 • We Judge Ourselves More Charitably Than We Do Others 121 • We Are Influenced by Our Expectations 122 • We Are Influenced by the Obvious 123 • We Assume Others Are Like Us 123

Synchronizing Our Perceptions 124 • Perception Checking 124 • Building Empathy 126 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 130 KEY TERMS 131 ACTIVITIES 131

103

104

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

NTERNATIONAL STATESMAN Nelson Mandela was fond of saying, “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” He knew the stances he took on issues were framed by his unique vantage point in life. Likewise, who you are and how you were raised are unique to you, which means that no one perceives the world exactly the way you do. This essential principle significantly affects interpersonal relations, as communicators attempt to share meaning from perspectives that are often quite different. Just like the cubes in Figure 4.1, every interpersonal situation can be seen from multiple points of view. Take a minute to study that figure. How many ways can you discover to view this image? If you only see one or two, keep looking; Figure 4.2 shows four ways. The point of this exercise is that making quick and accurate sense of even simple perspective drawings is a difficult task. With that in mind, you can begin to understand the challenge involved in imagining the perspectives of other human beings, who are far more complex and multidimensional. In this chapter, we provide tools for communicating in the face of perceptual differences. We begin by explaining that reality is constructed through communication. Then we introduce some of the many reasons why the world appears so different to each of us. After examining the perceptual factors that make understanding so difficult, we look at tools for bridging the perceptual gap.

THE PERCEPTION PROCESS How do our perceptions affect our communication with others? We begin to answer these questions by taking a look at the way we make sense of the world. FIGURE 4.1 How many different ways can you view two cubes?

FIGURE 4.2 Four ways of viewing Figure 4.1.

REALITY IS CONSTRUCTED Most social scientists agree that the world we know isn’t “out there.” Rather, we create our reality with others through communication (Kotchemidova,

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

2010). This may seem hard to accept until we recognize that there are two levels of reality, which have been labeled “first order” and “second order” (Nardone & Watzlawick, 2005; Watzlawick, 1984, 1990). F irst-order realities are physically observable qualities of a thing or situation (e.g., your neighbor speaks with an accent). By contrast, second-order realities involve our attaching meaning to first-order things or situations (e.g., the accent makes her sound exotic). Second-order realities don’t reside in objects or events, but rather in our minds. Life runs most smoothly when we share second-order realities. For example: First-order reality:

A job interviewer asks if you are married.

Shared second-order reality:

This is a reasonable question for the situation.

Communication becomes more problematic when we have different second-order realities. For example: First-order reality:

A job interviewer asks if you are married.

Your second-order reality:

The question has nothing to do with the job and is inappropriate.

Interviewer’s secondorder reality:

I am trying to make conversation.

In addition, many communication problems can arise when we mistake second-order (constructed) realities for first-order ones. In this chapter, we explore factors that cause us to experience and make sense of the world in different ways. Perhaps more important, we introduce you to some communication tools that can help bridge the gap between differing perceptions, and in so doing improve relationships. Zits: © 2001 Zits Partnership, Dist. by King Features

105

106

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

STEPS IN THE PERCEPTION PROCESS We attach meanings to our experiences in four steps: selection, organization, interpretation, and negotiation.

Selection Because we’re exposed to more input than we can possibly manage, the first step in perception is selection, or determining which data we will attend to. Several factors cause us to notice some messages while ignoring others (Coon, 2009): We perceive one another through many personal filters. Think of another’s communication behavior that affected you strongly. How else might you organize and interpret information related to it?

• Intensity. Something that is louder, larger, or brighter stands out. Someone who laughs or talks loudly at a party attracts more attention (not always favorable) than do quieter guests. • Repetition. Repetitious stimuli can also attract our attention. Just think of a quiet but steadily dripping faucet. • Contrast or change. Unchanging people or things are less noticeable. For example, we may appreciate our significant others more when they leave. Later in this chapter, we look at a variety of other factors—physiological, psychological, social, and cultural—that lead us to pay attention to certain people and events.

Organization After selecting information from the environment, the next stage is organization, or arranging it in some meaningful way (out of many possibilities) to help make sense of the world. We organize using perceptual schema, or cognitive frameworks (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2001). We use various types of schema to classify others, including the following (Freeman & Ambady, 2011): • Physical (e.g., beautiful or plain, heavy or thin, young or old) • Role-based (e.g., student, attorney, spouse) • Interaction-based (e.g., friendly, helpful, aloof, sarcastic) • Psychological (e.g., confident, insecure, happy, neurotic) Once we have selected an organizing scheme to classify people, we use it to make generalizations about members of the groups who fit our categories. For example, if you are especially aware of a person’s attractiveness, you might be alert to the differences in the way beautiful and plain people are treated (more on this in Chapter 6). If religion plays an important part in your life, you might think of members of your faith differently than you do others. We then organize our observations into generalizations (“Women tend to . . .”; “Teachers usually . . .”; “Nervous people often . . .”). There’s nothing wrong with generalizations about groups as long as they are accurate. But overgeneralizations (typically involving descriptors such as “always” and “never”) can lead to problems of stereotyping, which you’ll read about in a few pages.

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

We also can organize specific communication transactions in different ways, and these organizational schemes can have a powerful effect on our relationships. Communication theorists use the term punctuation to describe the determination of causes and effects in a series of interactions (Watzlawick et al., 1967). You can begin to understand how punctuation operates by visualizing a running quarrel between a husband and wife. Notice that the order in which each partner punctuates this cycle affects how the dispute looks. The husband begins by blaming the wife: “I withdraw because you’re so demanding.” The wife organizes the situation differently, starting with the husband: “I demand so much because you’re withdrawing.” These kinds of demand–withdraw arguments are common in intimate relationships (Reznik & Roloff, 2011; Schrodt et al., 2014). Once the cycle gets rolling, it is impossible to say which accusation is accurate, as Figure 4.3 indicates. The answer depends on how the sequence is punctuated. Anyone who has seen two children argue about “who started it” can understand that haggling over causes and effects isn’t likely to solve a conflict. In fact, assigning blame will probably make matters worse (Caughlin & Huston, 2002). Rather than argue about whose punctuation of an event is correct, it’s more productive to recognize that a dispute can look different to each person and then move on to the more important question of “What can we do to make things better?”

Interpretation Once we have selected and organized our perceptions, we interpret them in a way that makes some sort of sense. Interpretation—attaching meaning to sense data—plays a role in virtually every interpersonal act. Is the person who smiles at you across a crowded room interested in romance or simply being polite? Is a friend’s kidding a sign of affection or irritation? Should you take an invitation to “drop by any time” literally or not? Several factors cause us to interpret a person’s behavior in one way or another. For example: • Relational satisfaction. A behavior that seems positive when you are happy with a partner might seem completely different when the relationship isn’t satisfying (Luo et al., 2010). For example, couples in unsatisfying relationships are more likely than satisfied partners to blame one another when things go wrong (Diamond & Hicks, 2012). And the opposite also holds true: Partners in a satisfying relationship are likely to view each other more benevolently than accurately (Segrin et al., 2009). • Expectation. If you go into a conversation expecting a hostile attitude, you’re likely to hear a negative tone in the other person’s voice—even if that tone isn’t there (Hample et al., 2007). We talk more about how expectations affect perception later in this chapter. • Personal experience. If you’ve been taken advantage of by landlords in the past, you might be skeptical about reclaiming your cleaning deposit. • Personality. A study found that people with cold (relative to warm) dispositions have difficulty interpreting and labeling the emotions of others (Moeller et al., 2012). The researchers suggest that this deficiency can contribute to poorer social relationships for those with cold personalities.

107

Demanding Withdrawing

Withdrawing

Demanding

Withdrawing

FIGURE 4.3 The way a communication sequence is punctuated affects its perceived meaning. Which comes first, the demanding or the withdrawing?

108

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Online Channels Affect Perception You’ve been asked to come up with a list of tips for first-year college students. As you work on this task with an assigned stranger, that person says to you, “I bankrupted my checking account my freshman year.” Later that person mentions, “My parents got divorced two years ago.” How would you perceive those comments? Researchers at Cornell University believe your interpretation would be affected by whether the conversation took place in person or online. Previous research has shown that people tend to engage in more self-disclosure via social media

than they do face to face. This study focused on perceptions of such disclosures. Participants interpreted others’ self-revelations as more personal and intimate when they read them online than when they heard them in person. They would then reciprocate, offering more of their own disclosures online than they would face to face. The study lends support to the hyperpersonal nature of mediated communication discussed in Chapter 1. When cues are reduced and we see only typed words, we may read more into those comments than we would if they were delivered in person.

Jiang, L. C., Bazarova, N. N., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). From perception to behavior: Disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 40, 125–143.

• Assumptions about human behavior. Do you assume people are lazy and dislike work, or do you believe people generally exercise self-direction and self-control? Imagine the differences in a boss who assumes workers fit the first description versus the second (Sager, 2008). Note that the selection, organization, and interpretation phases of perception can occur in differing sequences. For example, a parent’s or babysitter’s past interpretations (such as “Jason is a troublemaker”) can influence future selections (his behavior becomes especially noticeable) and the organization of events (when there’s a fight, the assumption is that Jason started it). As with all communication, perception is an ongoing process in which it is hard to pin down beginnings and endings.

Negotiation In Chapter 1 you read that meaning is created both in and among people. So far our discussion has focused on the inner components of perception— selection, organization, and interpretation—that take place in each person’s mind. Now we need to examine the part of our sense-making that occurs among people. Negotiation is the process by which communicators influence each other’s perceptions. Negotiation can operate in subtle ways. For example, it’s rare to draw a conclusion about something or someone without comparing notes with others. Imagine you think a person you just met is attractive, and you mention this impression to friends. If you hear negative appraisals from them (“I don’t find that person attractive”), you might shift your initial perception—maybe not radically, but at least a bit. In one study that examined this process, college students rated the attractiveness of models in

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

a series of photos (Yang & Lee, 2014). Those who were able to see others’ evaluations of the same photos slowly shifted their ratings to match the consensus. This finding suggests that beauty isn’t just in the eye of the (individual) beholder—it’s in the eyes of the (negotiating) beholders. Another way to explain negotiation is to view interpersonal communication as the exchange of stories. Narratives are the stories we use to describe our personal worlds (Bromberg, 2012; Langellier & Peterson, 2006). Just as the boxes in Figure 4.1 on page 104 can be viewed in several ways, virtually every interpersonal situation can be described by more than one narrative. These narratives often differ in their casting of characters as “heroes” and “villains” (Aleman, 2005). For instance, consider a conflict between a boss and employee. If you ask the employee to describe the situation, she might depict the manager as a “heartless bean counter” while she sees herself as a worker who “always gets the job done.” The manager’s narrative might cast the roles quite differently: the “fair boss” versus the “clock watcher who wants to leave early.” Similarly, stepmothers and mothers-in-law who see themselves as “helpful” might be portrayed as “meddlesome” in the narratives of stepdaughters and daughters-in-law (Christian, 2005; Sandel, 2004). When our narratives clash with those of others, we can either hang on to our own point of view and refuse to consider anyone else’s (usually not productive), or try to negotiate a narrative that creates at least some common ground. Shared narratives provide the best chance for smooth communication. For example, romantic partners who celebrate their successful struggles against relational obstacles are happier than those who don’t have this shared appreciation (Flora & Segrin, 2000). Likewise, couples that agree about the important turning points in their relationships are more satisfied than those who have different views of which incidents were most important (Baxter & Pittman, 2001). Counselors even use “narrative therapy” to help partners revise and renew their identity as a couple (Kim et al., 2012b). Shared narratives don’t have to be accurate to be powerful (Martz et al., 1998). Couples who report being happily married after 50 or more years seem to collude in a relational narrative that doesn’t always jibe with the facts (Miller et al., 2006). They agree that they rarely have conflict, although objective analysis reveals that they have had their share of disagreements and challenges. Without overtly deciding to do so, they choose to blame outside forces or unusual circumstances for problems, instead of attributing responsibility to one another. They offer the most charitable interpretations of one another’s behavior, believing that their spouse acts with good intentions when things don’t go well. And their narratives usually have happy endings (Frost, 2013). Examining this research, Judy Pearson (2000) asks the following: Should we conclude that happy couples have a poor grip on reality? Perhaps they do, but is the reality of one’s marriage better known by outside onlookers than by the players themselves? The conclusion is evident. One key to a long happy marriage is to tell yourself and others that you have one and then to behave as though you do! (p. 186)

109

110

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

INFLUENCES ON PERCEPTION A variety of factors influence how we select, organize, interpret, and negotiate data about others. The available information affects our perceptual judgments, as do physiological, cultural and social, and psychological factors.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION We can only make sense of what we know, and none of us knows everything about even the closest people in our lives. When new information becomes available, perceptions of others change. If you see your instructor only when she’s teaching in the classroom, your conclusions about her will be based solely on her behaviors in that role. You might change your perception if you observe her in the roles of rush-hour driver, concertgoer, or grocery shopper. We often gain access to new information about others when their roles overlap. Consider how that might occur at an office party. A person’s “office” and “party” roles are usually quite different—so at an offsite work celebration, you may see behaviors you hadn’t expected. Similarly, when your sweetheart takes you home to meet the family, you might get to watch your partner playing a “spoiled son” or “princess daughter” role. If you’ve ever said, “I saw a whole new side of you tonight,” chances are it’s because you gained access to information you didn’t have before. Social media can provide new information that affects perceptions. That’s why job hunters are encouraged to clean up their online profiles and be careful to manage the impressions they might make (Kluemper et al., 2012). It’s also why children and parents sometimes don’t want to be Facebook friends with each other (Child & Westermann, 2013), which we discuss further in Chapter 10. Some roles are best kept private—or at least played to a select audience.

PHYSIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Watch and Discuss Look up and watch the video “All That We Share” (in Danish with English subtitles). 1) Consider how we organize and interpret information about others based on the “box” we see them in. 2) Discuss how access to new information and new “boxes” can help break down walls and build relationships.

Sometimes differing perspectives come from our physical environment and the ways that our bodies differ from others.

The Senses The differences in how each of us sees, hears, tastes, touches, and smells stimuli can affect interpersonal relationships (Croy et al., 2013). Consider a few examples arising from physiological differences: “Turn down that music! It’s giving me a headache.” “It’s not too loud. If I turn it down, it will be impossible to hear it.” “It’s freezing in here.” “Are you kidding? We’ll suffocate if you turn up the heat!” “Why don’t you pass that truck? The highway is clear for half a mile.” “I can’t see that far, and I’m not going to get us killed.”

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

Age We experience the world differently throughout our lifetimes. Age alters not just our bodies but our perspectives. Consider, for instance, how you’ve viewed your parents through the years. When you were a child, you probably thought they were all-knowing and flawless. As a teen, you may have viewed them as old-fashioned and mean. In adulthood, many people begin to regard their parents as knowledgeable and perhaps even wise. Although your parents have probably changed over time, it’s likely that your perception of them has changed far more than they have. A tongue-in-cheek observation attributed to Mark Twain puts it this way: “When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.”

Health and Fatigue Recall the last time you came down with a cold, flu, or some other ailment. Health can have a strong impact on how you perceive and relate to others. A romantic overture doesn’t sound appealing when you have a headache, and a night on the town with friends is more enjoyable when your muscles aren’t aching. It’s good to realize that someone else may be behaving differently because of illness. In the same way, it’s important to let others know when you feel ill so they can give you the understanding you need. Likewise, fatigue can affect relationships. People who are sleep deprived, for example, perceive time intervals as longer than they really are (Miró et al., 2003). One study found that when married couples don’t sleep well, they have more negative perceptions of each other the following day, leading to more interpersonal discord (Seidman, 2011). Toward that end, a good night’s sleep is an invaluable asset for managing interpersonal conflict (Gordon & Chen, 2014).

Biological Cycles Are you a “morning person” or a “night person”? Each of us has a daily cycle in which all sorts of changes constantly occur, including variations in body temperature, sexual drive, alertness, and tolerance to stress (Koukkari & Sothern, 2006) and to pain (Jankowski, 2013). These cycles can affect the way we relate to each other. For example, you are probably better off avoiding prickly topics in the morning with someone who is not a “morning person.”

Hunger Your own experience probably confirms that being hungry (and getting grumpy) or having overeaten (and getting tired) affects how we interact with others. For example, teenagers who reported that their family did not get enough food to eat were almost three times as likely to have been suspended from school, almost twice as likely to have difficulty getting along with others, and four times as likely to have no friends (Alaimo et al., 2001). Although the exact nature of the causes and effects in this study is hard to pin down, one thing is clear: Hunger can affect our perception andcommunication.

111

112

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Neurobehavioral Challenges

The documentary Life, Animated tells thestory of Owen Suskind, a young man who was unable to speak as a child. He and his family discovered that viewing Disney classics such as The Little Mermaid and The Lion King helped him understand social cues and reconnect with the world around him. How have neurobehavioral challenges shaped your own or others’ perceptions and communication?

Some differences in perception are rooted in neurology. For instance, people with ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) are easily distracted from tasks and have difficulty delaying gratification (Goldstein, 2008; Tripp et al., 2007). It’s easy to imagine how those with ADHD might find a long lecture boring and tedious, whereas others are fascinated by the same lecture (Von Briesen, 2007). People with bipolar disorder experience significant mood swings in which their perceptions of events, friends, family members, and even attempts at social support shift dramatically (Doherty & MacGeorge, 2013). The National Institute of Mental Health (2013) estimates that between 5 million and 7 million Americans are affected by these two disorders alone—and there are many other neurobehavioral conditions that influence our perceptions.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES Along with physiology, our psychological state also influences the way we perceive others.

Mood Our emotional state strongly influences how we view people and events and therefore how we communicate (Lount, 2013). An early experiment using hypnotism dramatically demonstrated the influence of mood on perception (Lebula & Lucas, 1945). Each subject viewed the same series of six pictures several times, each time having been put in a different mood. The descriptions of the pictures differed radically depending on the emotional state of the subject. For example, these are descriptions by one subject in various emotional states while describing a picture of children digging in a swampy area: Happy mood: “It looks like fun, reminds me of summer. That’s what life is for, working out in the open, really living—digging in the dirt, planting, watching things grow.” Anxious mood: “They’re going to get hurt or cut. There should be someone older there who knows what to do in case of an accident. I wonder how deep the water is.” Critical mood: “Pretty horrible land. There ought to be something more useful for kids of that age to do instead of digging in that stuff. It’s filthy and dirty and good for nothing.” Although there’s a strong relationship between mood and happiness, it’s not clear which comes first: the perceptual outlook or the amount of relational satisfaction. There is some evidence that perception leads to satisfaction (Fletcher et al., 1987), and some that satisfaction drives p ositive perceptions (Luo et al., 2010). In other words, the attitude/expectation we bring to a situation shapes our level of happiness or unhappiness. Once

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

started, this process can create a spiral. If you’re happy about your relationship, you will be more likely to interpret your partner’s behavior in a charitable way. This, in turn, can lead to greater happiness. Of course, the same process can work in the opposite direction. One study revealed that spouses who felt uncertain about the status of their marriage saw relational threats in conversations that seemed quite ordinary to outsiders (Knobloch et al., 2007). One remedy to serious distortions—and unnecessary conflicts—is to monitor your own moods. If you’re aware of being especially critical or sensitive, you can avoid overreacting to others (and you can warn others: “This isn’t a good time for me to discuss this with you—I’m a bit cranky right now”).

Self-Concept Another psychological factor that influences perception is self-concept (Hinde et al., 2001). One study demonstrated that the self-concept was the most important factor in perceiving teasing as friendly or hostile (Alberts et al., 1996). Another study showed that perceiving oneself as funny is related to perceiving others as funny (Bosacki, 2013). As a third example of self-concept’s importance in perception, children who have a low opinion of themselves are more likely to see themselves as victims of bullying, both in their classrooms and online (Katzer et al., 2009; Kowalski & Limber, 2013). As discussed in Chapter 3, the way we think and feel about ourselves strongly influences how we interpret others’ behavior.

SOCIAL INFLUENCES Within a society, our personal point of view plays a strong role in shaping perceptions. Social scientists have developed standpoint theory to describe how a person’s position in a society shapes her or his view of society in general and of specific individuals (Litwin & Hallstein, 2007; Wood, 2005). Standpoint theory is most often applied to the difference between the perspectives of privileged social groups and people who have less power (Kinefuchi & Orbe, 2008), and to the perspectives of women and men (Dougherty, 2001). Unless one has been disadvantaged, it can be difficult to imagine how the world might look to someone who has been treated badly because of race, ethnicity, gender, biological sex, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic class. After some reflection, though, you probably can understand how being marginalized can make the world seem like a very different place. We look now at how some specific types of societal roles affect an individual’s perception.

Sex and Gender Roles Although people often use the terms sex and gender as if they’re identical, there is an important difference (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2014). Sex refers to biological characteristics of a male or female, whereas gender refers to the social and psychological dimensions of masculine and feminine behavior.

113

114

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

The TV drama Transparent captures the struggles faced by Maura Pfefferman (Jeffrey Tambor), a transgender woman going through the transition later in life. Maura’s ex and her spoiled children make the process especially difficult. What sex and gender roles govern communication in your relationships?

Males and females can be more or less masculine, more or less feminine, or have both masculine and feminine characteristics. A person with relatively equal masculine and feminine characteristics is referred to as androgynous. In general, 80 percent of people see themselves as either sex typed (masculine male/feminine female) or androgynous (Choi et al., 2009). A large body of research shows that men and women perceive the world differently, for reasons ranging from genes to neurology to hormones (Becker et al., 2007; Schroeder, 2010). For instance, one study found that women are better than men at reading emotion in facial expressions, which is consistent with research showing that women are generally more perceptive about interpreting others’ nonverbal cues (Rennels & Cummings, 2013; see also Hall & Andrzejewski, 2017). However, the authors noted that these differences weren’t in place at infancy, and it’s hard to know whether nature or nurture was responsible for the development of this skill over time. Even cognitive researchers who focus on biological differences between men and women acknowledge that societal gender roles affect perception dramatically (Halpern, 2000). Sex role stereotypes can influence perception. In one experiment (Matthews, 2016), college debate judges were asked to assess the aggressiveness of participants in a fictional debate round. Even though all the debaters used similar language, the judges perceived the female debaters as significantly more aggressive than the males. In a different study (Kingsbury & Coplan, 2016), participants perceived ambiguous text messages as more negative when the hypothetical sender was identified as female— particularly if the recipient was male. These findings suggest that whether they mean to or not, communicators often see the world through the lens of societal role constructs. Gender can sometimes influence perception more than biological sex does (Baglan, 1993). For instance, a study on perceptions of effective teacher behavior (Aylor, 2003) found that gender was superior to biological sex as a predictor. Masculine individuals, regardless of their biological sex, perceived good teaching as a teacher’s use of communication to manage students’ behavior (e.g., the teacher’s being persuasive and managing conversations). Feminine individuals perceived good teaching as a teacher’s use of communication to manage students’ feelings (e.g., supporting students’ egos and helping students realize their mistakes). One way to appreciate the impact of gender roles on perception is to consider the experiences

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

@work

Sexual Harassment and Perception

What does a hand on the shoulder mean when making a workplace request? What if it lasts for more than a few seconds? Or how about the statement, “You need to do more around here— much more.” Every student of communication knows that messages have no meaning until people give them meaning—and that’s largely a matter of perception. Understanding interpersonal perception is thus critical to addressing the challenging issue of sexual harassment. Although there are clear-cut examples of outright harassment, differing perceptions explain many other incidents. For example, women are more likely than men to perceive behaviors as sexual harassment, and people with sexist attitudes tend to see less evidence of sexual harassment around them (Bitton & Shaul, 2013). Cultural background also shapes perceptions of harassment (Merkin, 2012; Toker, 2016). People from cultures with high

power distance (see Chapter 2) are less likely to perceive harassment from higher-ups than are those from places with low power distance. The meanings attributed to essentially the same behaviors change for workers as they age and gain new experiences. Younger employees—both men and women—are less likely than older people to regard sexualized interaction such as flirting and sexual joking as harassment (Blackstone et al., 2014). Findings like these help explain why some people find sexual harassment where others see nothing offensive.That’s where clear communication comes in: When members of an organization share their own perceptions and better understand those of others, we can expect fewer misunderstandings and greater job satisfaction. The perception-checking skills described in this chapter can be used to help the cause.

of transgender individuals. Many report seeing the world differently after shifting gender identities (Alter, 2016). One trans man said he’s learning new communication rules: “I’m still trying to figure out all of the different secret codes that guys use to talk to each other and to make friendships,” he says. “I don’t know what that punch on the arm meant.”

Occupational Roles The kind of work we do also governs our view of the world. Imagine five people taking a walk through a park. One, a botanist, is fascinated by the variety of trees and plants. Another, a zoologist, is on the lookout for interesting animals. The third, a meteorologist, keeps an eye on the sky, noticing changes in the weather. The fourth, a psychologist, is totally unaware of the goings-on of nature, concentrating instead on the interaction among the people in the park. The fifth, a pickpocket, quickly takes advantage of the others’ absorption to collect their wallets. There are two lessons in this little story: The first, of course, is to watch your wallet carefully. The second is that our occupational roles frequently govern our perceptions. An experiment in the early 1970s dramatically illustrated how occupational roles shape perception. Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1971, 2007) recruited a group of well-educated, middle-class young men.

115

116

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Billy Crudup stars as Dr. Philip Zimbardo in The Stanford Prison Experiment, a dramatization of the 1970s study described in this section. Among other findings, the experiment showed how occupational roles can influence perception and behavior. How do your social roles shape your perceptions of others?

He randomly chose 11 to serve as “guards” in a mock prison set up in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building. He issued the guards uniforms, handcuffs, whistles, and billy clubs. The remaining 10 participants became “prisoners” and were placed in rooms with metal bars, bucket toilets, and cots. Zimbardo let the guards establish their own rules for the experiment: no talking during meals and rest periods and after lights out. They took head counts at 2:30 a.m. Troublemakers received short rations. Faced with these conditions, the prisoners began to resist. Some barricaded their doors with beds. Others went on hunger strikes. Several ripped off their identifying number tags. The guards reacted to the rebellion by clamping down hard on protesters. Some turned sadistic, physically and verbally abusing the prisoners. The experiment was scheduled to go on for 2 weeks, but after 6 days Zimbardo realized that what had started as a simulation had become too intense. Clearly the roles they had taken on led the guards and prisoners to perceive, and then treat, each other very differently. You can probably think of ways in which jobs you’ve held have affected how you view others. If you’ve been in customer service, you’re probably more patient and understanding with those in similar positions (although you could also be a bit more critical). And if you’ve ever been promoted to manager at your place of work, you know that it typically changes your perceptions of, and behavior toward, coworkers who are now under your supervision.

Relational Roles Think back to the “Who am I?” list you made in Chapter 3. It’s likely your list included roles you play in relation to others: You may be a daughter, roommate, spouse, friend, and so on. Roles like these don’t just define who you are—they also affect your perception. Take for example the role of parent. As most new mothers and fathers will attest, having a child alters the way they see the world. They might perceive their crying baby as a helpless soul in need of comfort, whereas nearby strangers have a less charitable appraisal. As the child grows, parents often pay more attention to the messages in the child’s environment. One father we know said he never noticed how much football fans curse and swear until he took his 6-year-old to a game with him. In other words, his role as father affected what he paid attention to and how he interpreted it. The roles involved in romantic love can also dramatically affect perception. These roles have many labels: partner, spouse, boyfriend/ girlfriend, and so on. There are times when your affinity biases the way you perceive the object of your affection. You may see your sweetheart as more attractive than other people do and as more attractive than your previous partners, regardless of whether that’s objectively accurate (Swami & Allum, 2012). As a result, perhaps you overlook some faults that others notice (Segrin et al., 2009). Your romantic role can also

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

change the way you view others. Two separate studies (Cole et al., 2016; Gonzaga et al., 2008) found that when people are in love, they view other romantic candidates as less attractive than they otherwise would (one of the research teams referred to this as “perceptual downgrading”). Perhaps the most telltale sign of the effect of “love goggles” is when they come off. Many people have experienced breaking up with a romantic partner and wondering later, “What did I ever see in that person?” The answer— at least in part—is that you saw what your relational role led you to see.

CULTURAL INFLUENCES Culture influences selection, organization, interpretation, and negotiation, and it exerts a powerful influence on the way we view others’ communication. Even beliefs about the very value of talk differ from one culture to another (Dailey et al., 2005). Western cultures tend to view talk as desirable and use it for social purposes as well as to perform tasks. Silence has a negative value in these cultures. It is likely to be interpreted as lack of interest, unwillingness to communicate, hostility, anxiety, shyness, or a sign of interpersonal incompatibility. Westerners are generally uncomfortable with silence, which they often find embarrassing and awkward. On the other hand, Asian cultures tend to perceive talk quite differently (Kim, 2002). Silence is valued, as Taoist sayings indicate: “In much talk there is great weariness,” or “One who speaks does not know; one who knows does not speak.” Unlike Westerners, Japanese and Chinese communicators believe that remaining quiet is the proper state when there is nothing to be said. To Asians, a talkative person is often considered a show-off or a fake. These different views of speech and silence can lead to communication problems when people from different cultures meet. Communicators may view each other with disapproval and mistrust. Only when they recognize the cultural differences in behavior can they adapt, or at least understand and respect their differences. The valuing of talk isn’t the only way culture shapes perceptions. Cultural factors also affect our view of health professionals. Author Anne Fadiman (1997) explains why Hmong immigrants from the Southeast Asian country of Laos preferred their traditional shamanistic healers, called txiv neeb, to American doctors. The Hmong family whose experience she chronicled perceived striking differences in health care between the two cultures: A txiv neeb might spend as much as eight hours in a sick person’s home; doctors forced their patients, no matter how weak they were, to come to the hospital, and then might spend only twenty minutes at their bedsides. Txiv neebs were polite and never needed to ask questions; doctors asked about their sexual and excretory habits. Txiv neebs could render an immediate diagnosis; doctors often demanded samples of blood (or even urine or feces, which they liked to keep in little bottles), took X rays, and waited for days for the results to come back from the laboratory—and then, after all that, sometimes they were unable to identify the cause of the problem. Txiv neebs never undressed their patients; doctors asked patients to take off all their clothes, and sometimes dared to put their fingers inside women’s vaginas. Txiv neebs knew that to treat the body without treating the soul was an act of patent folly; doctors never even mentioned the soul. (p. 33)

117

118

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Media Clip

Master of Perception: Sherlock The famous Victorian sleuth Sherlock Holmes comes to life in the TV series Sherlock. Set in present-day London, the fictional detective (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) is successful in large measure because he’s so perceptive.After watching people for only a few moments, he’s abletodraw stunningly accurate conclusions about their motives and behaviors. One of Sherlock’s university classmates puts it this way: “He could look at you and tell your whole life story.” In response, Sherlock states, “I simply observed.” In terms of perception principles, Sherlock is more careful at selecting stimuli than are those around him, noticing details that others missed. He also tries not to be influenced by expectations or by the obvious. In fact, Sherlock chides those who miss important information because they fall prey to the common perception tendencies described in these pages. Although Holmes’ powers of deduction make him a stellar investigator, he lacks interpersonal competence. He’s often condescending and blunt, to the point of being rude. It appears that the man who is so perceptive about the world around him doesn’t recognize—or perhaps care about—his own interpersonal blind spots.

Culture plays an important role in our ability to understand the perspectives of others (Amarasinghe, 2012; Croucher, 2013). People raised in individualist cultures, which value independence, are often less adept at perspective-taking than those from collectivist cultures, which value interdependence. In one study, Chinese and American players were paired together in a communication game that required the participants to take on the perspective of their partners (Wu & Keysar, 2007). In all measures, the collectivist Chinese had greater success in perspectivetaking than did their American counterparts. This isn’t to suggest that one cultural orientation is better than the other; it only shows that culture shapes the way we perceive, understand, and empathize with others. Co-cultural factors affect perception as well. In studies using photos of children of various races, participants perceived black children as being significantly older than their actual ages (Goff et al., 2014). The same was not true of perceptions of white or Latino children. Participants also regarded black children as being more responsible for their actions than children of other races. The researchers maintain that this perception affects the treatment of black children in American culture. We’ll have more to say about the negative effects of stereotyping later in this chapter.

COMMON TENDENCIES IN PERCEPTION

By now it’s obvious that many factors affect the way we interpret the world. Social scientists use the term attribution to describe the process of attaching meaning to behavior (LaBelle & Martin, 2014; Rittenour & Kellas, 2015). We attribute meaning to both our own actions and the actions of others, but we often use different yardsticks. Research has uncovered several perceptual tendencies that may lead to inaccurate attributions.

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

WE MAKE SNAP JUDGMENTS Our ancestors often had to make quick judgments about whether strangers were likely to be dangerous, and there are still times when this ability can be a survival skill (Enosh & Ben-Ari, 2013). But there are many cases when judging others without enough knowledge or information can get us into trouble. In the most serious cases, gun holders fire at innocent people after making inaccurate snap decisions. On a more personal level, most of us have felt badly misjudged by others who made unfavorable snap judgments. If you’ve ever been written off in the first few minutes of an interview, or unfairly rebuffed by someone you just met, then you know the feeling. Despite the risks of rash decision making, in some circumstances people can make surprisingly good choices in the blink of an eye (Gladwell, 2004). The best snap judgments come from people whose decisions are based on expertise and experience. However, even nonexperts can be good at making some split-second decisions. For example, many speed daters are able to use physically observable traits to determine whether a person they have just met will become a romantic partner (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005). And researchers have found that inferences about politicians based on snap judgments of their looks alone can be surprisingly accurate (Wänke et al., 2013). Snap judgments become particularly problematic when they are based on stereotyping—exaggerated beliefs associated with a categorizing system. Stereotypes, which people automatically make on “primitive categories” such as race, sex, and age (Devos, 2013), may be founded on a kernel of truth, but they go beyond the facts at hand and make claims that usually have no valid basis. Three characteristics distinguish stereotypes from reasonable generalizations: • The first involves categorizing others on the basis of easily recognized but not necessarily significant characteristics. For example, perhaps the first thing you notice about a person is his or her skin color—but that is not nearly as significant as the person’s intelligence or achievements. • The second feature that characterizes stereotypes is ascribing a set of characteristics to most or all members of a group. For example, you DILBERT © 2015 Scott Adams. Used by permission of ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION. All rights reserved.

119

120

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

might unfairly assume that all older people are doddering or that all men are insensitive to women’s concerns (Hummert, 2011). • Finally, stereotyping involves applying the generalization to a particular person. Once you believe all old people are geezers or all men are jerks, it’s a short step to considering a particular senior citizen as senile or a particular man as a sexist pig. By adulthood, we tend to engage in stereotyping frequently, effortlessly, and often unconsciously, using what researchers call implicit bias to make our judgments (Morin, 2015). Once we create and hold these biases, we seek out isolated behaviors that support our inaccurate beliefs in an attempt to be cognitively consistent. For example, men and women in conflict with each other often notice or remember only behaviors of the opposite sex that fit their stereotypes (Allen, 1998). They then point to these behaviors—which might not be representative of how the other person typically behaves—to support their stereotypical and inaccurate claims: “Look! There you go criticizing me again. Typical for a woman!” One way to avoid the kinds of communication problems that come from excessive stereotyping is to decategorize, or treat people as individuals. Changing labels can aid the process of decategorizing. Instead of talking about white coworkers, gay friends, or foreign students, dropping the descriptors “white,” “gay,” and “foreign” might help you and others perceive people more neutrally.

WE CLING TO FIRST IMPRESSIONS Snap judgments are significant because our initial impressions of others often carry more weight than the ones that follow. This is due in part to what social scientists call the primacy effect: our tendency to pay more attention to, and to better recall, things that happen first in a sequence (Miller et al., 2004). You can probably recall first impressions you held of people who are now your close friends. With some it was “like at first sight.” With others, your initial appraisal was negative and it took some time and effort for it to change. Either way, your first impressions played a significant role in the interactions that followed. The term halo effect describes the tendency to form an overall positive impression of a person on the basis of one positive characteristic. Positive first impressions are often based on physical attractiveness, which can lead people to attribute all sorts of other virtues to a good-looking person (Lorenzo et al., 2010). For example, employment interviewers rate mediocre but attractive job applicants higher than their less attractive candidates (Watkins & Johnston, 2000). Unfortunately, the opposite also holds true. The horns effect (also called the “devil” or “pitchfork” effect) occurs when a negative appraisal adversely influences the perceptions that follow (Koenig & Jaswal, 2011). Once we form a first impression—whether it’s positive or n egative— we are susceptible to confirmation bias: We tend to seek out and organize our impressions to support that opinion. For example, experimental

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

subjects asked more suspicious questions when they believed that a suspect had been cheating on a task (Hill et al., 2008). The same bias occurs in job interviews: Once a potential employer forms a positive impression, the tendency is to ask questions that confirm the employer’s image of the applicant (Powell et al., 2012). The interviewer might ask leading questions aimed at supporting her positive views (“What valuable lessons did you learn from that setback?”), interpret answers in a positive light (“Ah, taking time away from school to travel was a good idea!”), encourage the applicant (“Good point!”), and sell the company’s virtues (“I think you would like working here”). Likewise, applicants who create a negative first impression are operating under a cloud that may be impossible to dispel. A study of college roommates shows all these effects at work. Roommates who had positive initial impressions of each other were likely to have positive subsequent interactions, manage their conflicts constructively, and continue living together (Marek et al., 2004). The opposite was also true: Roommates who got off to a bad start tended to spiral negatively. This finding reinforces the wisdom and importance of the old adage, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.”

WE JUDGE OURSELVES MORE CHARITABLY THAN WE DO OTHERS Whereas we may evaluate others critically, we tend to judge ourselves more generously (McClure et al., 2011). Social scientists use two theories to explain this phenomenon. The first is called the fundamental attribution error: the tendency to give more weight to personal qualities than to the situation when making attributions (McPherson & Young, 2004). For instance, if someone you know makes a hurtful comment, you’re likely to chalk it up to flaws in her or his character (mean spirited) than to external factors (fatigue, peer pressure). We’re more charitable when judging ourselves. This self-serving bias means that when we perform poorly, we usually blame external forces—and when we perform well, we credit ourselves rather than the situation (Shepperd et al., 2008). Consider a few examples of using different standards when making attributions of ourselves and others: • When they botch a job, we think they weren’t listening well; when we make the mistake, the problem was unclear directions. • When he makes an overly critical comment, it’s because he’s insensitive; when we do, it’s constructive criticism. • When she uses profanity, it’s because of a flaw in her character; when we swear, it’s because the situation called for it (see Young, 2004). One study of “honest but hurtful” messages shows how self-serving bias can operate in romantic relationships (Zhang, 2009). Partners who deliver these messages tend to see them as helpful and constructive. When on the receiving end, however, communicators see the same messages as

121

122

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Hurtful Communication: A Matter of Perception “You always hurt the one you love”—or so the song lyric says.A team of communication scholars led by Stacy Young explored the truth behind this claim. The researchers asked couples to discuss a relational conflict for seven minutes. Afterward, each partner viewed a recording of the conversation and counted the number of times something hurtful was said. The couples often disagreed on which comments were hurtful. In fact, they agreed only 20

percent of the time. But one thing was consistent: Participants regularly attributed more hurtful comments to their partners than to themselves. It’s noteworthy that the couples in the study actually scored high in measures of relational satisfaction. This finding shows that even in a happy romantic relationship, self-serving bias affects perceptions of hurtful communication.

Young, S. L., Bippus, A. M., & Dunbar, N. E. (2015). Comparing romantic partners’ perceptions of hurtful communication during conflict conversations. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 39–54.

hurtful and mean. It’s even easier to engage in self-serving bias in impersonal online relationships. A study showed that members of online teams, as opposed to in-person teams, were quicker to blame their partners when mistakes occurred (Walther & Bazarova, 2007). The researchers suggest that “unseen, unknown, and remote” teammates are easy scapegoats when something goes wrong. When you’re feeling wronged, it’s easy to blame others, believing they’re out to get you. But it’s possible you’ve misperceived their intentions, and talking things out might help. In one study, experimental subjects were surprised to discover that partners who had assigned them tedious tasks meant no harm. In fact, those partners were ready to apologize once they were informed of the perceived slight (Adams & Insei, 2016). The same principle can operate in the real world. You might feel bullied by a boss who overloads you with work, but it could be she isn’t aware of how you feel. She might even change your workload once you speak up—respectfully, of course. The goal is to make sure the two of you hold similar perceptions of the matter, or at least understand one another’s point of view. For ideas about how to talk about delicate issues such as this, see the discussions of perception checking in this chapter and of “I” language in Chapter 5.

WE ARE INFLUENCED BY OUR EXPECTATIONS Suppose you took a class and were told in advance that the instructor was terrific. Would this expectation affect the way you perceived the teacher? Research shows that it almost certainly would. In one study, students who read positive comments about instructors on a website viewed those teachers as

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

more credible and attractive than did students who were not exposed to the same comments (Edwards et al., 2007; see also Edwards & Edwards, 2013). Expectations don’t always lead to more positive appraisals. There are times when we raise our expectations so high that we are set up for disappointment. If you are told that someone you are about to meet is extremely attractive, you may be let down when the person doesn’t live up to your unrealistic mental image. Our expectations influence the way we see others, both positively and negatively— andmay lead to self-fulfilling p rophecies (DiPaola et al., 2010). This is an important point to remember when making decisions about others. Many professions require that manuscripts submitted to journals be evaluated through “blind review”—that is, without identifying information that might influence the evaluator’s appraisal. Orchestras often use “blind auditions,” where musicians perform behind a screen (Rice, 2013). In the same way, you can probably think of situations when it would be wise to avoid seeking advance information about another person you meet.

WE ARE INFLUENCED BY THE OBVIOUS Being influenced by what is most obvious is understandable. As you read earlier, we select stimuli from our environment that are noticeable—that is, intense, repetitious, unusual, or otherwise attention grabbing. The problem is that the most obvious factor is not necessarily the only cause— or the most significant one—of an event. For example: • When two children (or adults, for that matter) fight, it may be a mistake to blame the one who lashes out loudest. Perhaps the other one was at least equally responsible, teasing or refusing to cooperate. • You might complain about an acquaintance whose malicious gossiping or arguing has become a bother, forgetting that by putting up with that kind of behavior you have been at least partially responsible. • You might blame an unhappy work situation on the boss, overlooking other factors beyond her control, such as a change in the economy, the policy of higher management, or demands of customers or other workers. These examples show that it is important to take time to gather all the facts before arriving at a conclusion.

WE ASSUME OTHERS ARE LIKE US We commonly imagine that others possess the same attitudes and motives that we do (Human & Biesanz, 2011). The frequently mistaken assumption

123

Judges on the TV show The Voice keep their backs to contestants at first to evaluate singing on its own merit. How have you been swayed by appearances? How can you avoid this common perceptual tendency?

124

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

that others’ views are similar to our own applies in a wide range of situations. For example: • You’ve heard a slightly raunchy joke that you found funny. You assume that it won’t offend a friend. It does. • You’ve been bothered by an instructor’s tendency to get off the subject during lectures. If you were a professor, you’d want to hear constructive criticism, so you decide to share it, expecting the professor to be grateful. Unfortunately, you’re wrong. • You lost your temper with a friend a week ago and said some things you regret. In fact, if someone said those things to you, you would consider the relationship finished. Imagining that your friend feels the same way, you avoid making contact. In fact, your friend feels that he was partly responsible and has avoided you because he thinks you’re the one who wants to end things. These examples show that others don’t always think or feel the way we do and that assuming similarities can lead to problems. Sometimes you can find out the other person’s real position by asking directly, sometimes by checking with others, and sometimes by making an educated guess after you’ve thought the matter out. All these alternatives are better than simply assuming everyone would react the way you do. We don’t always fall into the kind of perceptual tendencies described in this section. Sometimes, for instance, people are responsible for their misfortunes, or our problems are not our fault. Likewise, the most obvious interpretation of a situation may be the correct one. Nonetheless, a large amount of research has shown again and again that our perceptions of others are often distorted in the ways we have described. The moral, then, is clear: Don’t assume your perceptions are accurate or unbiased.

SYNCHRONIZING OUR PERCEPTIONS After reading this far, you can appreciate how out of sync our perceptions of one another can be. These mismatched perceptions can interfere with our communication—and they can increase exponentially. As one communication scholar wryly puts it, confusion emerges “whenever we try to imagine what others think we think they think” (Anton, 2015). What we need, then, are tools to help others understand our perceptions and for us, in turn, to understand theirs. In this section, we introduce two such tools.

PERCEPTION CHECKING Given the likelihood for perceptual errors, it’s easy to see how a communicator can leap to the wrong conclusion and make inaccurate assumptions. Consider the defense-arousing potential of incorrect accusations such asthese:

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

“Why are you mad at me?” (Who said I was?) “What’s the matter with you?” (Who said anything was the matter?) “Come on now. Tell the truth.” (Who said I was lying?) Even if your interpretations are correct, these kinds of mind-reading statements are likely to generate defensiveness. The skill of perception checking provides a better way to review your assumptions and to share your interpretations (Hansen et al., 2002). A complete perception check has three parts: 1. A description of the behavior you noticed. 2. Two possible interpretations of the behavior. 3. A request for clarification about how to interpret the behavior. Perception checks for the preceding three examples would look likethis: “When you stomped out of the room and slammed the door [behavior], I wasn’t sure whether you were mad at me [first interpretation] or just in a hurry [second interpretation]. How did you feel? [request for clarification]” “You haven’t laughed much in the last couple of days [behavior]. It makes me wonder whether something’s bothering you [first interpretation] or whether you’re just being quiet [second interpretation]. What’s up? [request for clarification]” “You said you really liked the job I did [behavior], but there was something about your voice that made me think you may not like it [first interpretation]. Maybe it’s just my imagination, though [second interpretation]. How do you really feel? [request for clarification]” Perception checking is a tool to help us understand others accurately instead of assuming that our first interpretation is correct. Because its goal is mutual understanding, perception checking is a cooperative approach to communication. Besides leading to more accurate perceptions, it signals an attitude of respect and concern for the other person, saying, in effect, “Iknow I’m not qualified to judge you without some help.” Sometimes an effective perception check won’t need all of the parts listed in the preceding example to be effective: “You haven’t dropped by lately. Is anything the matter? [single interpretation]” “I can’t tell whether you’re kidding me about being cheap or if you’re serious [behavior combined with interpretations]. Are you mad at me?” [request for interpretation] “Are you sure you don’t mind driving? I can use a ride if it’s no trouble, but I don’t want to take you out of your way [request for clarification comes first; no need to describe behavior].” The straightforward approach of perception checking has the best chance of working in what we identified in Chapter 2 as low-context cultures, ones in which members value candor and self-disclosure. American,

125

126

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION

Distorting Perception: The Gaslight Effect The gaslight effect (or “gaslighting”) is a contemporary term for manipulating and controlling another person’s perceptions. The term refers to the 1944 film classic Gaslight, in which a husband tries to convince his wife that she’s insane by changing small elements in their environment—and then insisting she’s wrong when she points out these changes. Therapist Robin Stern has written extensively about the gaslight effect, identifying it as a form of mental abuse (2007; see also Sarkis, 2017). A less pathological form of gaslighting occurs when one person deceitfully tries to justify his or her behavior by blaming the other. “You never told me that,” an accuser might say while knowing that the statement isn’t true. Or more maliciously, “You expect me to be faithful when you’re always coming on to other guys?” Shifting guilt to the innocent is a hallmark of gaslighting. Victims of gaslighting tend to blame themselves, apologize, and offer excuses for another’s behaviors. Depression and withdrawal often follow. It’s hard to communicate freely when you’ve been led to believe you’re always wrong. Recognizing the symptoms of gaslighting is the first step in breaking the pattern. Another key is seeking out objective perspectives from trusted others. The perception-checking skills described in this section are useful tools in a healthy relationship. However, if you think you’re being manipulated by a significant other, perception checking with people outside the relationship can help ensure that your perspective hasn’t been distorted.

Australian, Canadian, and German dominant cultures, for example, fit into this category. Members of these groups are most likely to appreciate the kind of straight talking that perception checking embodies. On the other hand, members of high-context cultures (more common in Latin America and Asia) value social harmony over clarity. High-context communicators are more likely to regard candid approaches such as perception checking as potentially embarrassing, preferring instead less direct ways of understanding oneanother. Along with clarifying meaning, perception checking can sometimes be a facesaving way to raise an issue without directly threatening or attacking the other person. Consider these examples: “Were you going to drop off the rent check tomorrow?” “Am I boring you, or do you have something else on your mind?” In the first case, you might have been quite sure your roommate had forgotten to deliver the rent check, and in the second that the other person was bored. Even so, a perception check is a less threatening way of pointing out their behavior than direct confrontation. Remember that one element of competent communication is the ability to choose the best option from a large repertoire, and perception checking can be a useful strategy at times.

BUILDING EMPATHY

Perception checking can help us decode messages more accurately, but it doesn’t provide enough information for us to claim that we fully understand another person. For example, a professor who uses perception checking might learn that a student’s reluctance to ask questions is due to confusion and not lack of interest. This information would be helpful, but imagine how much more effective the professor would be if she or he could get a sense of the confusion from the student’s perspective. Likewise, parents who use perception checking might find that their teenager’s outlandish behavior grows from a desire to be accepted. But to truly understand this behavior, the parents

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

would need to consider (or perhaps recall) what it feels like to crave that acceptance.

Empathy Defined What we need, then, to understand others more completely is empathy— the ability torecreate another person’s perspective, to experience the world from his or her point of view (Geist, 2013). It is impossible to achieve total empathy, but with enough effort and skill, we can come closer to this goal (Krause, 2010). Empathy has three dimensions. On one level, empathy involves perspective taking—the ability to take on the viewpoint of another person (Manohar & Appiah, 2016). This understanding requires a suspension of judgment so that for the moment you set aside your own opinions and take on those of the other person. Besides cognitive understanding, empathy also has an affective dimension—what social scientists term emotional contagion. In everyday language, emotional contagion means that we experience the same feelings that others have. We know their fear, joy, sadness, and so on. A third ingredient of empathy is a genuine concern for the welfare of the other person. Not only do we think and feel as others do, but we have a sincere interest in their well-being. Full empathy requires both intellectual understanding of the other person’s position and an affective understanding of the other’s feelings (Carré et al., 2013; Kerem etal., 2001). It’s easy to confuse empathy with sympathy, but the concepts are different. With sympathy, you view the other person’s situation from your point of view. With empathy, you view it from the other person’s perspective. Consider the difference between sympathizing and empathizing with a single parent or a homeless person. When you sympathize, your feelings focus on the other person’s confusion, joy, or pain. When you empathize, the experience becomes your own, at least for the moment. It’s one thing to feel bad (or good) for someone; it’s more profound to feel bad (or good) with someone.

Experiencing Empathy Empathy may be valuable, but it isn’t always easy to achieve (Ickes & Hodges, 2013). In fact, it’s hardest to empathize with people who are radically different from us in categories such as age, sex, and socioeconomic status (Goleman, 2013). To make such perceptual leaps, you need to develop open-mindedness, imagination, and commitment. The good news is that researchers are learning that empathy is less an inborn trait, like height, than a learnable skill, like playing chess. This is especially true

127

128

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

Media Clip

Gaining Empathy: UndercoverBoss The long-running reality series Undercover Boss depicts how walking in another’s shoes can increase interpersonal empathy. In the show, high-ranking company officials don disguises and take on the roles of entry-level employees in their organizations. Some of the bosses rediscover what it was like when they were working their way up the occupational ladder. Others gain new appreciation for a world they’ve never known. Versions of the show run in 15 different countries, suggesting there’s international appeal in watching a boss spend time in the organizational trenches. Researchers interviewed 13 CEOs who had been on the series to see what they learned from the experience (Cumberland & Alagaraja, 2016). The executives uniformly agreed they gained new empathy for workers in their company, and they also gleaned a better understanding of their organization’s culture. Better yet, most said they made changes in company policies as a result of being on the program. Although you may never become a CEO or be on a reality show, the empathy lesson of Undercover Boss should be clear: When communicating interpersonally, it’s important to understand what the world looks like from the other person’s vantage point.

when there’s a will to empathize, and a belief that doing so is possible (Schumann, et al., 2014). The best way to gain empathy for people whose point of view differs from yours is by interacting with them (Zhang, 2016). We can also empathize by attempting to experience the world from another’s perspective. Rachel Kolb (2016) describes such a moment. As a deaf person born to a hearing family, she is fluent in both American Sign Language (ASL) and spoken English (which she understands by lip reading). Kolb was having lunch with a hearing friend, who agreed to converse in ASL instead of spoken English. That conversation was an eye-opener. . . . after a few minutes, my usually bold, un-self-conscious friend stopped. She chuckled and shrugged a little, and said, “I feel like everyone here is looking at us.” I glanced around the small cafe, at all the hearing people sitting at their tables. Indeed, some had craned their necks to look at our movements, but this was behavior I’d long ago ceased to notice. “Yeah,” I signed back, bluntly. “That often happens.” My friend smiled. A moment later, we started conversing again, and I think then she understood: This is what it can be like to occupy a signing body.

Simulations can also help you experience another person’s reality. For instance, spending even a short time in a virtual body of someone whose race differs from yours can help you understand how the world looks and feels to them (Hogenboom, 2013). Literally—or, at least, virtually—inhabiting the body of another provides the basis for developing empathy, which can lead to a reduction in bias. Similarly, college students who took on avatars of elderly people and entered their virtual environment came away with new attitudes toward the aged (Yee & Bailenson, 2006).

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

129

Empathy and Ethics The “golden rule” of treating others as we want to be treated points to the clear relationship between empathy and the ethical principles that enable society to function (Howe, 2013).

A S S E S S I N G YO U R CO M M U N I C AT I O N

Your Empathy Quotient Respond to each of the following statements using a scale ranging from 0 to 4, where 0 = “never” and 4 = “always.” Also have someone who knows you well fill out the instrument about you and compare notes afterward.

_____

1. When someone else is feeling excited, I tend to get excited too.

_____ 2. Other people’s misfortunes do not disturb me a great deal. _____ 3. It upsets me to see someone being treated disrespectfully. _____ 4. I remain unaffected when someone close to me is happy. _____ 5. I enjoy making other people feel better. _____ 6. I have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than I am. _____

7. When a friend starts to talk about his/her problems, I try to steer the conversation toward something else.

_____ 8. I can tell when others are sad even when they do not say anything. _____

9. I find that I am “in tune” with other people’s moods.

_____ 10. I do not feel sympathy for people who cause their own serious illnesses. _____ 11. I become irritated when someone cries. _____ 12. I am not really interested in how other people feel. _____ 13. I get a strong urge to help when I see someone who is upset. _____ 14. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I do not feel very much pity for them. _____ 15. I find it silly for people to cry out of happiness. _____ 16. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel a bit protective toward him/her. Adapted from Spreng, R., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 62–71.

For scoring information, see page 132 at the end of the chapter.

130

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

A look at criminal behavior demonstrates the link between empathy, ethics, and communication. Typically, people who have committed the most offensive crimes against others, such as rape and child abuse, do not express any sense of how their actions affected the victims (Clements et al., 2007). New treatments attempt to change behavior by instilling the ability to imagine how others are feeling (Day et al., 2010). In these programs, offenders read and watch emotional accounts of crimes similar to the ones they have committed. Offenders also write accounts of what their crimes must have felt like to the victim, read these stories to others in therapy groups, and even experience simulated reenactments in which they play the role of the victim. Through strategies such as these, therapists try to help offenders develop the empathy required to have an ethical approach to the world.

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING Objective 4.1 Understand the subjective nature of perceiving interpersonal messages and relationships.

The reality we perceive is constructed through communication with others. First-order realities involve things and events that are objectively observable; second-order realities are the meanings we assign to those things and events. Interpersonal perception involves four phases: selection, organization, interpretation, and negotiation. Q: Recall an important exchange in which you viewed matters differently than your relational partner. Describe how you selected, organized, and interpreted the other person’s behavior and how your partner perceived the exchange differently. How successful were you in negotiating a shared perception of what happened?

Objective 4.2 Identify the variety of influences on interpersonal perception.

Physiological influences on perception include our senses, age, health and fatigue, biological cycles, hunger, and neurobehavioral challenges.

Psychological influences such as mood and self- concept also have a strong influence on how we regard others. In addition, social influences such as sex and gender roles, occupational roles, and relational roles play an important part in the way we view those with whom we interact. Finally, cultural influences shape how we recognize and make sense of others’ words and actions. Q: Identify instances in which the physiological, psychological, social, and cultural influences described in this chapter shaped your perceptions and consequently your interpersonal communication.

Objective 4.3 Recognize how common

tendencies in perception shape interpersonal communication. We tend to make snap judgments and cling to first impressions, even if they are mistaken. We are more likely to blame others than ourselves for misfortunes. We are influenced by our expectations. We also are influenced by obvious stimuli, even if they are not the most important factors. Finally, we assume others are similar to us.

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

Q: Describe a case in which the perceptual tendencies described in this chapter shaped your perceptions and consequently your communication. How might the incident have turned out differently if you had not succumbed to these perceptual errors?

Objective 4.4 Use perception checking

131

noticed, offer two equally plausible interpretations, and ask for clarification from their partner. Empathy is the ability to experience the world from another person’s perspective. There are three dimensions to empathy: perspective taking, emotional involvement, and concern for the other person. Requirements for empathy include openmindedness, imagination, and commitment. Q: Construct a perception-checking statement you could use to clarify your understanding in an important relationship. How might using this approach affect the relationship if you presented it using the empathy-enhancing attitudes described in this chapter?

and adjust attitudes to enhance empathy with communication partners.

One way to coordinate our interpretations with others is through perception checking. Instead of jumping to conclusions, communicators who check their perceptions describe the behavior they

KEY TERMS Androgynous (114) Attribution (118) Confirmation bias (120) Empathy (127) First-order realities (105) Fundamental attribution error(121) Gender (113)

ACTIVITIES

Halo effect (120) Horns effect (120) Interpretation (107) Narrative (109) Negotiation (108) Organization (106) Perception checking (125) Primacy effect (120)

Punctuation (107) Second-order realities (105) Selection (106) Self-serving bias (121) Standpoint theory (113) Stereotyping (119)

ACTIVITIES 1. Complete the following sentences: a. Women . . . _____________________________ _______________________________________ ___________ b. Men . . . ________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________ c. Latinos . . . ______________________________ _______________________________________ ___________ d. European Americans . . . ___________________ _______________________________________ ___________

e. African Americans . . . _____________________ _______________________________________ ___________

f. Older people . . . _________________________ _______________________________________ ___________

Now share your observations with a classmate and discuss the degree to which each of your responses was a stereotype and/or a generalization. How could your answers to these questions change the way you perceive and respond to people in these groups? Discuss with your classmate ways in which your communication is affected by stereotyping.

132

PART 1

F OU ND ATI ONS OF I NTE RPERS O N A L CO MMU N I CAT I O N

2. You can get a better appreciation of the importance of punctuation by using the format pictured in Figure 4.3 (p. 107) to diagram the following situations: a. A father and daughter are growing more and more distant. The daughter withdraws because she interprets her father’s coolness as rejection. The father views his daughter’s aloofness as a rebuff and withdraws further. b. The relationship between two friends is becoming strained. One jokes to lighten up the tension, and the other becomes more tense. c. A couple is on the verge of breaking up. One partner frequently asks the other to show more affection. The other withdraws physical contact.

Explain how each of these situations could be punctuated differently by each participant. Next, use the same procedure to identify how an event from your experience could be punctuated in at least two different ways. Describe the consequences of failing to recognize the plausibility of each of these punctuation schemes. 3. In a group, have each member choose one of the following situations, and describe how it could be perceived differently by each person. Be sure to include the steps of selection, organization, and interpretation. What might their narratives sound like as they negotiate their perceptions? List any relevant physiological, psychological, social, and cultural influences, as well as suggesting how the communicators’ self-concepts might have affected their perceptions. a. A customer complains to a salesperson about poor service in a busy store. b. A parent and teenager argue about the proper time for returning home after a Saturday night date.

c. A quiet student feels pressured when called on by an instructor to speak up in class. d. A woman and a man argue about whether to increase balance in the workplace by making special efforts to hire employees from underrepresented groups.

4. Improve your perception-checking ability by developing complete perception-checking statements for each of the following situations. Be sure your statements include a description of the behavior, two plausible interpretations, and a request for verification. a. You made what you thought was an excellent suggestion to your boss. He or she said, “I’ll get back to you about that right away.” It’s been 3 weeks, and you haven’t received a response yet. b. You haven’t received the usual weekly phone call from your family in over a month. Last time you spoke, you had an argument about where to spend the holidays.

After you’ve created your perception-checking statements, share them with some friends or family members and see how they would respond if they were the recipients. 5. You can develop your empathy skills by putting yourself in the shoes of someone with whom you have an interpersonal relationship. With that person’s help, describe in the first person how the other person views an issue that is important to him or her. In other words, try as much as possible to become that person and see things from his or her perspective. Your partner will be the best judge of your ability to make this perceptual jump, so use his or her feedback to modify your account. After completing the exercise, describe how your attempt changed the way you might relate to the other person.

SCORING FOR ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION (PAGE 129)

Before summing your responses to the 16 items, reverse the scores for the negatively worded items: 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15. That is, for these items, 0 = 4, 1 = 3, 2 = 2, 3 = 1, and 4 = 0. After reversing the scores for

CH A PT ER 4 Perceiving O thers

the noted items, sum all your responses to determine your total empathy score. In several studies, female participants scored slightly higher than male ones. For women, on average, the sum was 47; for men, the sum was 44. The 16 items capture the most commonly measured aspect of empathy, “an emotional process or an accurate affective insight into the feeling state of another” (Spreng et al., 2009, p. 62).

133

5 Language LEARNING OBJECTIVES

CHAPTER OUTLINE

5.1

The Nature of Language 136

5.2 5.3 5.4

Explain the symbolic, rule-based, subjective, culture-bound nature of language. Recognize the impact, both positive and negative, of language in interpersonal relationships. Describe the influence gender has on language use in interpersonal relationships. Identify ways in which online language usage is different from the in-person variety.

FEATURES Media Clip: Invented Languages: Game of Thrones 137 Focus on Research: The Negative Consequences of Fat Talk 141 At Work: Swearing on the Job 144 Dark Side of Communication: Sorry, NotSorry 145 Assessing Your Communication: Sexist Language 146 Watch and Discuss: “Vague Facebook Posts—Congressional Hearings” 149 Media Clip: Damning with Faint Praise: Florence Foster Jenkins 151 Focus on Research: The Language of Online Community 159

• Language Is Symbolic 136 • Language Is Rule-Governed 137 • Language Is Subjective 139 • Language and Worldview 139

The Impact of Language 141 • Naming and Identity 141 • Affiliation 142 • Power and Politeness 143 • Sexism and Racism 145 • Precision and Vagueness 148 • The Language of Responsibility 152

Gender and Language 156 • Extent of Gender Differences 156 • Non-gender Influences on Language Use 158

Social Media and Language 158 • Online Language and Impression Management 158 • Online Language and Gender 160 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 161 KEY TERMS 162 ACTIVITIES 162

135

136

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

ROFESSOR LERA BORODITSKY (2009) often begins her undergraduate lectures by asking students which cognitive faculty they would least want to lose. Most choose vision; a few pick hearing. Almost no one mentions language. Boroditsky suggests this is an oversight. After all, she reasons, people who lack the ability to see or hear can still have rich and satisfying lives. “But what would your life be like if you had never learned a language?” she wonders. “Could you still have friends, get an education, hold a job, start a family? Language is so fundamental to our experience, so deeply a part of being human, that it’s hard to imagine life without it” (p. 116). A simple exercise illustrates how language is basic to our view of the world. Take a look at Figure 5.1 and quickly name aloud each of the colors of the words (for instance, you should say “orange, blue, yellow” when reading the first line). Chances are, you’ll have difficulty doing so without pausing or stumbling. This phenomenon, known as the Stroop effect, points to how language influences perception. We see the world through the filter of our words. Language is arguably the most essential component of human communication. In this chapter, we explore the relationship between words and ideas. We describe some important characteristics of language and show how these characteristics affect our day-to-day communication. We outline several types of troublesome language and show how to replace them with more effective kinds of speech. Finally, we look at how gender and online communication influence the way we use language.

THE NATURE OF LANGUAGE We begin our survey by looking at some features that characterize all languages. These features explain both why language is such a useful tool and why it can be so troublesome.

PURPLE YELLOW RED BLACK RED GREEN RED YELLOW ORANGE BLUE PURPLE BLACK RED GREEN ORANGE FIGURE 5.1 The Stroop Effect. Naming the color of a printed word is more difficult if the word meaning and the color do not match.

LANGUAGE IS SYMBOLIC

Words are arbitrary symbols that have no meaning in themselves. For example, the word five is a kind of code that represents the number of fingers on your hand only because we agree that it does. As Bateson and Jackson (1964) point out, “There is nothing particularly five-like in the number ‘five’” (p. 271). To a speaker of French, the symbol cinq would convey the same meaning; to a computer, the same value would be represented by the digitally coded symbol 0101. Even sign language, as “spoken” by most deaf people, is symbolic in nature (Sandler, 2013). Because this form of communication is symbolic and not literal, there are hundreds of different sign languages used around the world that have evolved independently, whenever significant numbers

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

of deaf people have come in contact (Meir et al., 2010). These distinct languages include American Sign Language, Mexican Sign Language, British Sign Language, French Sign Language, Danish Sign Language, Chinese Sign Language, and Australian Aboriginal and Mayan Sign Languages—and communicating across different sign languages can be as difficult as it is across different spoken languages (Quinto-Pozos, 2008).

137

Media Clip

LANGUAGE IS RULE-GOVERNED The only reason symbol-laden languages work at all is that people agree on how to use them. The linguistic agreements that make communication possible can be codified in rules. Languages contain several types of rules that continuously evolve (Garner, 2014). Phonological rules govern how sounds are combined to form words. For instance, the words champagne, double, and occasion have the same meanings in French as in English, but their pronunciations differ across the two languages because of differing phonological rules. Whereas phonological rules determine how spoken language sounds, syntactic rules govern the way symbols can be arranged. Notice that the following statements contain the same words, but the shift in syntax creates quite different meanings: Whiskey makes you sick when you’re well. Whiskey, when you’re sick, makes you well.

Invented Languages: Game of Thrones When characters on the series Game of Thrones speak foreign-sounding words, they’re not just spouting gibberish. The show commissioned linguist David J. Peterson to create actual languages for these scenes, including Dothraki and Valyrian. These languages follow the same rules—phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic—described in this section. Peterson takes his job seriously. When he created the language Dothraki (which is spoken by a nomadic warrior tribe in the series), he mapped out the history of every word—including thousands of words that would never be needed on the show (Brennan, 2016). Peterson also developed complete languages for characters in shows such as The 100 and The Shannara Chronicles. If the idea of inventing a language seems odd, consider that you may have done so on a much smaller scale. If you have terms and phrases that you use with friends and loved ones that outsiders wouldn’t understand, then you too have engaged in a form of language creation.

Although most of us aren’t able to describe the syntactic rules that govern our language, it’s easy to recognize their existence when they are violated. A humorous example is the way the character Yoda speaks in the Star Wars movies. Phrases such as “the dark side are they” or “your father he is” often elicit a chuckle because they bend syntactical norms. Sometimes, however, apparently ungrammatical speech is simply following a different set of syntactic rules, reflecting regional or co-cultural dialects. Linguists believe it is crucial to view such dialects as different rather than deficient forms of English (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2005).

138

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Semantic rules govern the meaning of language as opposed to its structure. These make it possible for us to agree that “bikes” are for riding and “books” are for reading. Without semantic rules, communication would be impossible; each of us would use symbols in unique ways, unintelligible to others. Semantic rules help us understand the meaning of individual words, but they often don’t explain how language operates in everyday life. Consider the statement “Let’s get together tomorrow.” The semantic meaning of the words in this sentence is clear enough, yet the statement could be taken in several ways. It could be a straightforward invitation (“I hope we can get together”), a polite command (“I want to see you”), or an empty cliché (“I don’t really want to see you”). We learn to distinguish the accurate meanings of such speech acts through pragmatic rules, which tell us what uses and interpretations of a message are appropriate in a given context (Dougherty et al., 2009). When all players understand and use the same pragmatic rules, smooth communication is possible. For example, one rule specifies that the relationship between communicators affects the meaning of a statement. The statement “I want to see you” is likely to mean one thing when uttered by your boss and another entirely when it comes from your lover. Likewise, the setting in which the statement is made plays a role: “I want to see you” will probably have a different meaning at the office than at a party. Of course, the nonverbal behaviors that accompany a statement also help us decode its meaning. People in individual relationships create their own sets of pragmatic rules. Consider the use of humor: The teasing and jokes you exchange with gusto with one friend might be considered tasteless or offensive in another relationship. For instance, imagine an email message typed in CAPITAL LETTERS and filled with CURSE WORDS, INSULTS, NAME-CALLING, and EXCLAMATION MARKS!!! How would you interpret such a message? An outside observer might consider this an example of “flaming” and be appalled, when in fact the message might be a fun-loving case of “verbal jousting” between buddies (O’Sullivan & Flanagin, 2003; Maiz-Arevalo, 2015). If you have a good friend whom you call by a less-than-tasteful nickname as a term of endearment, then you understand the concept. Keep in mind, however, that those who aren’t privy

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

to your relationship’s pragmatic rules are likely to misunderstand you, so you’ll want to be wise about when and where to use these personal codes.

139

Thought or Reference

LANGUAGE IS SUBJECTIVE If the rules of language were more precise and if everyone followed them, we would suffer from fewer misunderstandings. You have an hour-long argument about “feminism” only to discover that you each were using the term in different ways and that you really were in basic agreement. You tease a friend in what you mean to be a playful manner, but he takes you seriously and is offended. These problems occur because people attach different meanReferent ings to the same message. Ogden and Richards (1923) illustrated Symbol this point in their well-known “triangle of meaning” (see Figure 5.2). This model shows that there is only an indirect relationship— e.g., “dog,” “perro” indicated by a broken line—between a word and the thing or idea it represents. Ogden and Richards’s model is oversimplified in that not all FIGURE 5.2 Ogden and Richards’ words refer to physical things, or “referents.” For instance, some Triangle of Meaning referents are abstract ideas (such as love), whereas others (such as angry or exciting) aren’t even nouns. Despite these shortcomings, the triangle of meaning is useful because it clearly demonstrates an important principle: Meanings are in people, not words. Hence, an important task facing communicators is to establish a common understanding of the words they use to exchange messages. In this sense, communication— at least the effective kind—requires us to negotiate the meaning of our language (Leung & Lewkowicz, 2013). This brings us back to a familiar theme: Meaning is both in and among people. Language is a function of individuals who give each word unique meaning as well as cultures that create and share meaning collectively.

LANGUAGE AND WORLDVIEW For more than 150 years, theorists have put forth the notion of linguistic relativity—that a language both reflects and shapes the worldview of those who use it (Deutscher, 2010; Everett, 2013). For instance, bilingual speakers seem to think differently when they change languages (Cook & Bassetti, 2011). In one study, French Americans were asked to interpret a series of pictures. When they spoke in French, their descriptions were far more romantic and emotional than when they used English to describe the same kind of images. In Israel, both Muslim and Jewish students saw bigger distinctions between their group and “outsiders” when using their native language than when they spoke in English, a neutral tongue in this context. Examples such as these show the power of language to shape cultural identity—sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. The best-known declaration of linguistic relativity is the Sapir– Whorf hypothesis, credited to Benjamin Whorf, an amateur linguist, and

140

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

anthropologist Edward Sapir (Tohidian, 2009; Whorf, 1956). Following Sapir’s theoretical work, Whorf found that the language spoken by Hopi Native Americans represented a view of reality that is dramatically different from how speakers of other languages view the world. For example, the Hopi language makes no distinction between nouns and verbs. Therefore, the people who speak it describe the entire world as being constantly in process. Whereas English speakers use nouns to characterize people or objects as being fixed or The sci-fi film Arrival offers a dramatized illustration of the SapirWhorf hypothesis. By learning the language of extraterrestrial constant, the Hopi language represents them more visitors, linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) experias verbs, constantly changing. In this sense, Engences the world in profoundly different ways. Are you fluent in lish represents the world rather like a collection more than one language? If so, how does each one shape your worldview? of snapshots, whereas the Hopi representation is more like a movie. Some languages contain terms that have no English equivalents (Wire, 2010). For example, consider a few words in other languages that have no simple translation in English: • Nemawashi (Japanese): the process of informally feeling out the opinions of all the people involved with an issue before making a decision • Lagniappe (French/Creole): an extra gift given in a transaction that wasn’t expected by the terms of a contract • Lao (Mandarin): respectful term used for older people, showing their importance in the family and in society • Dharma (Sanskrit): each person’s unique, ideal path in life and the knowledge of how to find it It’s possible to imagine concepts like these without having specific words to describe them, but linguistic relativity suggests that the terms do shape the thinking and actions of people who use them. Thus, speakers of a language that includes the notion of lao would probably be more inclined to treat their older members respectfully, and those who are familiar with lagniappe might be more generous. The potential impact of linguistic relativity on interpersonal communication is significant. Consider the difference between the phrases “You make me angry” and “I get angry when you. . . .” The first phrase says to the other person—and to yourself—that your anger is the other person’s fault. The second phrase is an “I” message that takes responsibility for your emotions (a concept described later in this chapter and also in Chapter8). Changing your language can not only help reduce defensiveness in the other person, but it can also reframe how you see the situation. The same could happen if you begin calling adult females “women” instead of “girls” (Florio, 2016), or if you refer to college undergrads as “students” instead of “kids” (Valles, 2014). You might view those people differently based on the labels you use to describe them. Your words can affect how you see the world.

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

The Negative Consequences of Fat Talk A premise of linguistic relativity is that our words don’t just reflect how we see the world; they also affect how we see it. The language we use shapes our perception of things, others, and ourselves. Communication researcher Analisa Arroyo found this principle at work in her study of “fat talk.” People who regularly put concerns about their weight into words (“I’m so fat”; “My butt is huge”) reinforce a poor body image. Arroyo identified three particular signs that fat talk is doing harm: (1) when it’s used routinely and compulsively; (2) when it involves constant comparisons with others; and (3) when it includes guilt words such as “should” and “ought” (“I really should drop some weight”).

As discussed in Chapter 3, a steady diet of negative self-appraisals and social comparison can turn into a destructive cycle of thoughts, words, and behaviors. In an interesting twist, there seems to be no harm in listening to fat talk. Says Arroyo, “It is the act of engaging in fat talk, rather than passively being exposed to it, that has these negative effects.” She suggests that people struggling with this problem should establish “fat talk free” weeks with their friends. Arroyo also believes that replacing “I should” with “I will” or “I can” when talking about weight reduction can help people move in the right direction.

Arroyo, A. (2013). “I’m so fat!” The negative outcomes of fat talk. Communication Currents, 7, 1–2. Arroyo, A., & Harwood, J. (2012). Exploring the causes and consequences of fat talk. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, 167–187.

THE IMPACT OF LANGUAGE As linguistic relativity suggests, language can have a strong influence on our perceptions and how we regard one another. In this section, we examine some of the many ways language can impact our lives.

NAMING AND IDENTITY “What’s in a name?” Juliet asked rhetorically. If Romeo had been a social scientist, he would have answered, “A great deal.” Research has demonstrated that names are more than just a simple means of identification; they shape the way others think of us, the way we view ourselves, and the way we act (Lieberson, 2000). For more than a century, researchers have studied the impact of rare and unusual names on the people who bear them (Christenfeld & Larsen, 2008). Early studies claimed that people with nonnormative names suffered everything from psychological and emotional disturbance to failure in college. Later studies show that people often have negative appraisals not only of unusual names, but also of unusual name spellings (e.g., Mehrabian, 2001). In one study, for example, people with unusual names were judged least likely to be hired (Cotton et al., 2008). Of course, what makes a name (and its spelling) unusual changes with time. In 1900, the 20 most popular names for baby girls in the United States included Bertha,

141

142

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Mildred, and Ethel. By 2015, the top 20 names included Madison, Mia, and Sophia—names that would have been highly unusual a century earlier (Social Security Administration, 2016). Some people regard unique names as distinctive. You can probably think of four or five unique names—of celebrities, sports stars, or even personal friends—that make the person easily recognizable and memorable. In one study, a poem signed with an unusual name was assessed as more creative than when signed by a more common name (Lebuda & Karwowski, 2013). Sometimes the choice of unique names is connected with cultural identity. For example, in some parts of the United States, nearly a third of African American girls born in the 1990s were given distinctively black names that belonged to no one else in the state (Dinwiddie-Boyd, 1994). Researchers suggest that distinctive names like these are a symbol of solidarity with the African American community. Conversely, choosing a less distinctive name can be a way of integrating the baby into the majority culture.

AFFILIATION An impressive body of research shows how language can build and demonstrate solidarity with others. Communicators adapt their speech in a Baby naming is an important decision that can shape identity variety of ways to indicate affiliation and accomthroughout life. What consequences have flowed from having modation, including through their choice of voyour name? How might things have been different if you had been given a dramatically different name? cabulary, rate of talking, number and placement of pauses, and level of politeness (Giles, 2016). In one study, the likelihood of mutual romantic interest increased when conversation partners’ use of pronouns, articles, conjunctions, prepositions, and negations matched (Ireland et al., 2011). The same study revealed that when couples used similar language styles while instant messaging, the chances of their relationship continuing increased by almost 50 percent. Close friends and lovers often develop a set of special terms that serve as a way of signifying their relationship (Dunleavy & Booth-Butterfield, 2009). Using the same vocabulary sets these people apart from others. The same process works among members of larger groups, from street gangs to military units. Convergence is the process of adapting one’s speech style to match that of others with whom one wants to identify (Dragojevic et al., 2016). Language matching creates bonds not only between friends in person but also between strangers online (Rains, 2016; Riordan et al., 2013).

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

When two or more people feel equally positive about one another, their linguistic convergence will be mutual. But when one communicator wants or needs approval, convergence is more one-sided (Muir et al., 2016). We see this process when employees seeking advancement start speaking more like their superiors. One study even showed that adopting the swearing patterns of bosses and coworkers in emails is a sign that an employee is fitting into an organization’s culture (Lublin, 2017). See the At Work sidebar in this section for a discussion of this topic. The principle of speech accommodation works in reverse, too. Communicators who want to set themselves apart from others adopt the strategy of divergence, speaking in a way that emphasizes their differences (Gasiorek & Vincze, 2016). For example, members of an ethnic group might use their own dialect as a way of showing solidarity with one another. The same can occur across age lines, such as teens who adopt the slang of subcultures other than their own to show divergence from adults (Reyes, 2005). Of course, communicators need to be careful about when—and when not—to converge their language. For example, using ethnic or racial epithets when you’re not a member of that in-group may be inappropriate and even offensive (O’Dea et al., 2015). One of the pragmatic goals of divergence is the creation of norms about who may use certain words and who may not.

POWER AND POLITENESS Communication researchers have identified a number of language patterns that communicate more or less power (Dillard, 2014; Hosman & Siltanen, 2006). Notice the difference between these two statements from an employee to a manager: Excuse me, sir. I hate to say this, but I . . . uh . . . I guess I won’t be able to finish the project on time. I had a personal emergency and . . . well . . . it was just impossible to finish it by today. I’ll have it to you first thing on Monday, okay? I won’t be able to finish the project on time. I had a personal emergency and it was impossible to finish it by today. I will have it to you first thing on Monday.

The first statement is an example of what has been called powerless language: tentative and indirect word choices, with hedges and hesitations (“Excuse me, sir”; “I guess”; “okay?”). The second is labeled powerful language: direct and forceful word choices, with declarations and assertions (“I won’t”; “I will”). Studies have shown that speakers who use powerful speech are rated as more competent, dynamic, and attractive than speakers who sound powerless (Ng & Bradac, 1993; Reid & Ng, 1999). In addition, when it comes to employment interview outcomes, a powerful speech style results in more positive attributions of competence and employability than a powerless one (Parton et al., 2002).

143

144

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

@work

Swearing on the Job

Swearing serves a variety of communication functions (Baruch et al., 2017). It’s a way to express emotions and to let others know how strongly you feel. It can be part of a compliment (“that was #$&@ing terrific!”) or the worst of insults. Swearing can offend and alienate, but it can also build solidarity and be a term of endearment. Communication researchers Danette Johnson and Nicole Lewis (2010) investigated the effects of swearing in work settings. Not surprisingly, they found that the more formal the situation, the more negative the appraisal. The chosen swear word also made a difference: “F-bombs” were rated as more inappropriate than other less-volatile terms. When hearers were surprised by a speaker’s swearing, they were likely to deem the person as

incompetent—unless they were pleasantly surprised (Johnson, 2012). Despite these findings, Stanford University professor Robert Sutton (2010) notes that choosing not to swear can actually violate the norms of some organizations. Moreover, he maintains that swearing on rare occasions can be effective for the shock value. (The fact that Sutton authored a book called The No Asshole Rule suggests he practices what he preaches.) But even Sutton adds a cautionary note about swearing on the job: “If you are not sure, don’t do it.” The rules of interpersonal competence apply: Analyze and adapt to your audience, and engage in self-monitoring. And when in doubt, err on the side of restraint.

A disclaimer is a type of powerless speech that attempts to distance a speaker from remarks that might be unwelcome. For example, you might preface a critical message by saying, “I don’t mean to sound judgmental, but . . .” and then go on to express your disapproval. One study showed that disclaimers actually increase negative judgments (El-Alayli et al., 2008). For instance, the phrase “I don’t mean to sound arrogant” followed by a high-handed comment led subjects to regard the speaker as more arrogant. Disclaimers involving other negative qualities such as laziness and selfishness produced similar results. It seems that disclaimers backfire because they sensitize listeners to look for—and find—precisely the qualities that the speaker is trying to disavow. Some scholars question the label “powerless” because tentative and indirect speech styles can sometimes achieve goals better than more assertive approaches (Lee & Pinker, 2010). For example, less forceful approaches can be attempts at politeness: communicating in ways that save face for both senders and receivers. Politeness is valued in some cultures more than others (Dunn, 2013). In Japan, saving face for others is an important goal, so communicators there tend to speak in ambiguous terms and use hedge words and qualifiers. In most Japanese sentences, the verb comes at the end of the sentence so the “action” part of the statement can be postponed. Traditional Mexican culture, with its strong emphasis on cooperation, also uses hedging to smooth over interpersonal relationships. By not taking a firm stand with their speech mannerisms, Mexicans believe they will not make others feel ill at ease. Even in highly assertive cultures, simply counting the number of powerful or powerless statements won’t always reveal who has the most control in a relationship. Social rules often mask the real distribution of power.

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

A boss who wants to be pleasant might say to a secretary, “Would you mind getting this file?” In truth, both boss and secretary know this is an order and not a request, but the questioning form makes the medicine less bitter. Sociolinguist Deborah Tannen (1994) describes how politeness can be a face-saving way of delivering an order: I hear myself giving instructions to my assistants without actually issuing orders: “Maybe it would be a good idea to . . .”; “It would be great if you could . . .” all the while knowing that I expect them to do what I’ve asked right away. . . . This rarely creates problems, though, because the people who work for me know that there is only one reason I mention tasks—because I want them done. I like giving instructions in this way; it appeals to my sense of what it means to be a good person . . . taking others’ feelings into account. (p. 101)

As the proceeding quotation suggests, high-status speakers—especially higherstatus women, according to Tannen—often realize that politeness is an effective way to get their needs met while protecting the dignity of the less-powerful person. The importance of achieving both content and relational goals helps explain why a mixture of powerful and polite speech is usually most effective (Geddes, 1992). The key involves adapting your style to your conversational partner (Loyd et al., 2010). If the other person is likely to perceive politeness as weakness, it may be necessary to shift to a more powerful speaking style. Conversely, if the person sees powerful speech as rude and insensitive, it might be best to use a more polite approach (Fandrich & Beck, 2012). As always, competent communication requires flexibility and adaptability.

DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION

Sorry, Not Sorry On the surface, saying “I’m sorry” seems like a good communication practice. Indeed, Chapter 9 describes the importance of apologies and forgiveness in interpersonal relationships. But scholars (Schumann & Ross, 2010) and social commentators note that women say “I’m sorry” far more than men do, often out of habit (“I’m sorry, may I sit here?”; “I’m sorry, could you please tell me. . .”). Although these ritual apologies are attempts to be polite, they can suggest weakness and even subservience. “Sorry is simply another way of downplaying our power, of softening what we do, to seem nice,” observes Jessica Bennett (2014). “And yet, how can we be deemed likable and competent if we’re always sounding defensive or unsure?” The Pantene ad Not Sorry and a skit by comedian Amy Schumer offer serious and humorous commentaries about women’s tendency to overapologize. These videos are linked in an op-ed piece by Sloane Crosley (2015), who believes women should heighten their awareness of this issue and change the way they talk: “The sorrys aretaking up airtime that should be used for making logical, declarative statements, e xpressing opinions and relaying impressions of what wewant.” Of course, there are times when saying “I’m sorry” is gracious, responsible, and altogether appropriate. Competent communicators will want to monitor how often they use the phrase and how necessary it is to say it—and adapt their language accordingly.

SEXISM AND RACISM Sexist language “includes words, phrases, and expressions that unnecessarily differentiate between females and males or exclude, trivialize, or diminish” either sex (Parks & Roberton, 2000, p. 415). This type of speech can affect the self-concepts of women and men, which is why one author (Lillian, 2007) argues that it is a form of hate speech.

145

146

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

A S S E S S I N G YO U R CO M M U N I C AT I O N

Sexist Language SECTION I: For each of the following statements, rate your agreement or disagreement on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.”

______ 1. Women who think that being called a “chairman” is sexist are misinterpreting the word “chairman.” ______ 2. Worrying about sexist language is a trivial activity. ______ 3. If the original meaning of the word “he” was “person,” we should continue to use “he” to refer to both males and females today. ______ 4. The elimination of sexist language is an important goal. ______ 5. Sexist language is related to sexist treatment of people in society. ______ 6. When teachers talk about the history of the United States, they should change expressions, such as “our forefathers” to expressions that include women. ______ 7. Teachers who require students to use nonsexist language are unfairly forcing their political views on their students. SECTION II: For each of the following situations, rate your willingness on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = very unwilling and 5 = very willing.

______ 8. When you are referring to a married woman, how willing are you to use the title “Ms. Smith” rather than “Mrs. Smith”? ______ 9. How willing are you to use the word “server” rather than “waiter” or “waitress”? ______ 10. How willing are you to use the expression “husband and wife” rather than “man and wife”? ______ 11. How willing are you to use the title “flight attendant” instead of “steward” or “stewardess”? This self-assessment contains 11 of the 21 items on the Inventory of Attitudes Toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language–General, developed by Parks and Roberton (2000).

For scoring information, see page 163 at the end of the chapter.

Suzanne Romaine (1999) offers several examples of how linguistic terms can subtly stereotype men and women. To say that a woman mothered her children focuses on her nurturing behavior, but to say that a man fathered a child talks only about his biological role. We are familiar with terms such as working mother, but there is no term working father because we assume (perhaps inaccurately) that men are the breadwinners.

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

Beyond just stereotyping, sexist language can stigmatize women. For example, the term unmarried mother is common, but we do not talk about unmarried fathers because for many people there is no stigma attached to this status for men. Whereas there are over 200 English words for promiscuous women, there are only 20 for men (Piercey, 2000). Perhaps that’s why “attitude towards women” is a significant predictor of attitudes regarding nonsexist language (Parks & Roberton, 2008). Education and perspective taking are also positively related to mindsets about inclusive language. There are at least two ways to eliminate sexist language (Lei, 2006; Rakow, 1992). The first circumvents the problem altogether by eliminating sex-specific terms or substituting neutral terms. For example, using the plural they eliminates the necessity for he, she, she and he, or he and she. In fact, “they” has become the pronoun of choice for many individuals (Hess, 2016). When no sex reference is appropriate, you can substitute neutral terms. For example, mankind may be replaced with humanity, human beings, human race, and people; manmade may be replaced with artificial, manufactured, and synthetic; manpower may be replaced with labor, workers, and workforce; and manhood may be replaced with adulthood. In the same way, Congressmen and Congresswomen are members of Congress; firemen and firewomen are firefighters; chairmen and chairwomen are presiding officers, leaders, and chairs; foremen and forewomen are supervisors; policemen and policewomen are both police officers; and stewardesses and stewards are both flight attendants. Of course, some terms refer to things that could not possibly have a sex—so, for example, a manhole cover is a sewer lid. The second method for eliminating sexism is to mark sex clearly—to heighten awareness of whether the reference is to a female or a male. For example, rather than substitute chairperson for chairman, use the terms chairman and chairwoman to specify whether the person is a man or a woman. (Note, also, that there is nothing sacred about putting he before she; in fact, putting she, her, and hers after he, him, and his, without changing the order, continues to imply that males are the more important sex and should come first.) Whereas sexist language usually defines the world as made up of superior men and inferior women, racist language reflects a worldview that classifies members of one racial group as superior and others as inferior (Asante, 2002). Not all language that might have racist overtones is deliberate. For example, the connotations of many words favor whites over people of color (Smith-McLallen et al., 2006): In the United States and many other cultures, the color white often carries more positive connotations than the color black. . . . Terms such as “Black Monday,” “Black Plague,” “black cats,” and the “black market” all have negative connotations, and literature, television, and movies have traditionally portrayed heroes in white and villains in black. The empirical work of John E. Williams and others throughout the 1960s demonstrated that these positive and negative associations with the colors black and white, independent of any explicit connection to race, were evident among white and black children as young as 3 years old . . . as well as among adults. (pp. 47–48)

147

148

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

An obvious step toward eliminating racist language is to make sure your communication is free of offensive labels and slurs (Guerin, 2003). Some troublesome language will be easy to identify, whereas other problematic uses will be subtler. For instance, you may be unaware of using racial and ethnic modifiers when describing others, such as “black professor” or “Pakistani merchant” (or modifiers identifying sex, such as “female doctor” or “male secretary”). Modifiers such as these usually aren’t necessary, and they can be subtle indicators of racism/sexism. If you wouldn’t typically use the phrases “white professor,” “European American merchant,” “male doctor,” or “female secretary,” then modifiers that identify race and sex might be indicators of attitudes and language that need to be changed.

PRECISION AND VAGUENESS Most people assume that the goal of language is to make our ideas clear to one another. When clarity is the goal, we need language skills to make our ideas understandable to others. Sometimes, however, we want to be less than perfectly clear. In the following pages, we point out some cases where vagueness serves useful purposes as well as cases where complete understanding is the goal.

Ambiguous Language Ambiguous language consists of words and phrases that have more than one commonly accepted definition. Some ambiguous language is amusing, as the following newspaper headlines illustrate: Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers Teacher Strikes Idle Kids 20-Year Friendship Ends at the Altar

Sometimes ambiguous language can lead to humorous misunderstandings. In other cases, though, the confusion can be more serious. How can you make sure your words don’t create problems?

Many misunderstandings that arise from ambiguity are trivial. We recall eating dinner at a Mexican restaurant and ordering a “tostada with beans.” Instead of being served a beef tostada with beans on the side, we were surprised to see the waiter bring us a plate containing a tostada filled with beans. Other misunderstandings involving ambiguous messages can be more serious. A nurse gave one of her patients a scare when she told him that he “wouldn’t be needing” his robe, books, and shaving materials anymore. The patient became quiet and moody. When the nurse inquired about the odd behavior, she discovered that the poor man had interpreted her statement to mean he was going to die soon. In fact, the nurse meant he would be going home shortly. It’s difficult to catch and clarify every instance of ambiguous language. For this reason, the responsibility for interpreting statements accurately rests in large part with the receiver. Seeking feedback of one sort or another—for example, by paraphrasing and questioning—can help clear up misunderstandings: “You say you love me, but you want to see other people. In my book, ‘love’ is exclusive. What about you?”

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

149

Abstra ct

Abstraction

Specific

Abstractions are convenient ways of generalizing about You need to have similarities between several objects, people, ideas, or a better attitude. events. Figure 5.3 is an abstraction ladder that shows how we can use a range of specific to abstract terms for You need to describing an object, event, or situation. be more positive. We use higher-level abstractions all the time. For instance, rather than saying “Thanks for washing the You need to complain less. dishes, vacuuming the rug, and making the bed,” we might more abstractly say “Thanks for cleaning up.” In You need to such everyday situations, abstractions can be a useful complain less about kind of verbal shorthand. working too hard. High-level abstractions can help communicators You need to quit complaining find face-saving ways to avoid confrontations and emevery time we have to work barrassment (Eisenberg & Witten, 1987). If a friend late or come in on weekends. apologizes for arriving late for a date, you can choose to brush off the incident instead of making it an issue by saying, “Don’t worry. It wasn’t the end of the world”— a true statement, but less specific than saying, “To tell FIGURE 5.3 Abstraction Ladder. In this example, you the truth, I was mad at the time, but I’ve cooled a boss gives feedback to an employee about career off now.” If your boss asks your opinion of a new idea advancement at various levels of specificity. that you think is weaker than your own approach, but you don’t want to disagree, you could respond with a higher-level abstraction by saying, “I never thought of it that way.” Although vagueness does have its uses, highly abstract language can cause several types of problems. At the most basic level, the vagueness of some abstract language makes it hard to understand the meaning of a message. Telling the hairstylist “shorter” or “more casual” without providing more specific instructions might lead to an unpleasant surprise. Overly abstract language can also lead to stereotyping if, for instance, someone who has had one bad experience blames an entire group: “Marriage counselors are worthless”; “New Yorkers are all rude”; or “Men are no good.” Overly abstract expressions such as these can cause people to think in problematic generalities, ignoring uniqueness. You might assume that abstract statements will soften the blow of all critical messages, but research suggests that isn’t always the case. People Watch and Discuss who use vague language to describe others’ negative actions are rated as Look up and watch less likeable than those who use concrete language (Douglas & Sutton, “Vague Facebook Posts— 2010). By describing another’s negative behavior in abstract terms, you Congressional Hearings.” may appear to have a hidden agenda. The effect was not found, however, when describing the positive behaviors of others. 1) Consider how “vaguebookYou can make your language—and your thinking—less abstract and ing” uses abstract and more clear by learning to form behavioral descriptions of your problems, ambiguous language to goals, appreciations, complaints, and requests. We use the word behavioral achieve its goals. because such descriptions move down the abstraction ladder to describe 2) Discuss the pros and cons the specific, observable objects and actions we’re thinking about. Table 5.1 of being intentionally vague shows how behavioral descriptions are much more clear and effective than on social media posts. vague, abstract statements.

150

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

TABLE 5.1 Abstract

Versus Behavioral Descriptions Behavioral Description

Abstract Description

Problem

Goal

Appreciation

Complaint

Request

In What Circumstances

Specific Behaviors

People I’d like to date

At parties and in school

I think, “They’d never want to date me.” I don’t initiate conversations.

Behavioral description more clearly identifies thoughts and behaviors to change.

Phone and door-to-door solicitors

When I don’t want the product or can’t afford it

Instead of apologizing, I want to keep saying “I’m not interested” until they go away.

Behavioral description clearly outlines how to act; abstract description doesn’t.

[no clarification necessary]

When I’ve needed to change my schedule because of school exams or assignments

“You’ve been so willing to rearrange my work schedule.”

Give both abstract and behavioral descriptions for best results.

In class, when students ask questions the professors think are stupid

They either answer in a sarcastic voice (you might demonstrate) or accuse us of not studying hard enough.

If talking to A or B, use only behavioral descriptions. With others, use both abstract and behavioral descriptions.

When I’m studying for exams

“Instead of asking me again and again to party with you, I wish you’d accept that I need to study tonight.”

Behavioral description will reduce defensiveness and make it clear that you don’t always want to be left alone.

Who Is Involved

I’m no good at meeting strangers.

I’d like to be more assertive.

“You’ve been a great boss.”

“I don’t like some of the instructors around here.”

“Quit bothering me!”

Professors A and B

My friends X and Y

Remarks

Euphemism Euphemisms (from a Greek word meaning “to use words of good omen”) are innocuous terms substituted for blunt ones. A euphemism avoids a direct, literal reference to an event (such as “She died”), substituting terms describing its consequences (“She’s no longer with us”); related events (“She took her last breath”); metaphors (“She jumped the last hurdle”); or other, more abstract associations (McGlone et al., 2006). Euphemisms

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

are typically used to soften the impact of information that might be unpleasant, both for oneself as well as for the other person (McCallum & McGlone, 2011). It’s easy to imagine how a relational breakup might be easier to handle with the explanation “I’m not ready for commitment” than with “I want to date other people.” We tend to use euphemisms more when talking with people of higher status, probably as a way to avoid offending them (Makin, 2004). When choosing how to broach difficult subjects, the challenge is to be as kind as possible without sacrificing either your integrity or the clarity of your message.

Relative Language

151

Media Clip

Damning with Faint Praise:

Relative language gains meaning by comFlorence Foster Jenkins parison. For example, do you attend a large or a small school? This depends on what you Florence Foster Jenkins (Meryl Streep) is a wealthy compare it to. Alongside a campus such as and well-connected socialite who has one remaining Ohio State’s, with more than 60,000 stuambition in life: to share her singing talent with the dents, your school may look small; but comworld. Unfortunately, her vocal abilities are mediocre pared with a college of 1,500 students, yours at best and ear-piercing at worst. But no one has the may seem quite large. Relative words such as heart or courage to tell her. fast and slow, near and far, and short and long Jenkins is surrounded with people who artfully are clearly defined only through comparison. dodge making blunt appraisals of her singing. Notice Using relative terms without explainhow her vocal coach uses abstract language in this ing them can lead to communication probexchange to avoid telling her the painful truth: lems. Have you ever responded to someone’s question about the weather by saying it was Coach: You’ve never sounded better. warm, only to find out the person thought Florence: Maestro, it is true that a lot of singers my it was cold? Have you followed a friend’s age are on the decline, but I seem to get better advice and gone to a “cheap” restaurant, and better. only to find that it was twice as expensive as Coach: I know, it’s hard to believe, isn’t it? you expected? Have classes you heard were Florence: Well, I am so blessed. “easy” turned out to be hard? The problem in each case resulted from failing to link the Coach: There is no one quite like you. relative word to a more measurable term. Chapter 3 described how equivocation can be a One way to make words more measurstrategy for evading the truth without technically able is to turn them into numbers. Health lying.It’s easy to understand why Jenkins’s supporters care practitioners have learned that patients choose this approach. often use vague wording when describing their pain: “It hurts a little”; “I’m pretty sore.” The use of a numeric pain scale can give a more precise response—and lead to a better diagnosis (Prentice, 2005). When patients are asked to rank their pain from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe pain they’ve ever experienced, the number 7 is much more

152

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

concrete and specific than “It aches a bit.” The same technique can be used when asking people to relate anything from the movies they’ve seen to their job satisfaction.

Evaluative Language Evaluative language (sometimes also called emotive language) seems to describe something but really announces the speaker’s attitude toward it (Defour, 2008; Harding, 2007). If you approve of a friend’s roundabout approach to a difficult subject, you might call her “tactful”; if you don’t like it, you might accuse her of “beating around the bush.” You can appreciate how evaluative words are really editorial statements when you consider these examples: If You Approve, Say

If You Disapprove, Say

thrifty cheap traditional old-fashioned extrovert loudmouth cautious coward progressive radical information propaganda eccentric crazy

THE LANGUAGE OF RESPONSIBILITY Besides providing a way to make the content of a message clear or obscure, language reflects the speaker’s willingness to take responsibility for her or his beliefs, feelings, and actions. This acceptance or rejection of responsibility says a great deal about the speaker, and it can shape the tone of a relationship. To see how, read on.

“It” Statements Notice the difference between the sentences in each set: “It’s worrying when you’re late.” “I’m worried when you’re late.” “It’s a bad idea.” “I don’t think that’s a good idea.” “It’s a problem.” “I see it as a problem.” As their name implies, “it” statements replace the personal pronouns I and me with the less immediate construction it’s. By contrast, “I” language clearly identifies the speaker as the source of a message. Communicators who use “it” statements avoid ownership of a message. This habit isn’t just

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

imprecise; it’s a subtle, potentially unconscious way for someone to avoid taking a position.

“But” Statements Statements that take the form “X-but-Y” can be quite confusing. A closer look at the “but” statement explains why. But has the effect of canceling the thought that precedes it: “You’re really a great person, but I think we ought to stop seeing each other.” “You’ve done good work for us, but we’re going to have to let you go.” “This paper has some good ideas, but I’m giving it a grade of D because it’s late.” “Buts” can be a face-saving strategy worth using at times. When the goal is to be absolutely clear, however, the most responsible approach will deliver the central idea without the distractions that can come with “but” statements. Break statements such as the preceding ones into two sentences, and then explain each one as necessary. Doing so lets you acknowledge both parts of the statement without contradicting yourself.

“I,” “You,” and “We” Language We’ve already seen that “I” language is a way of accepting responsibility for a message. “You” language, by contrast, expresses a judgment of the other person. Positive judgments (“You did a great job!”) rarely cause problems, but notice how each of the following critical “you” statements implies that the subject of the complaint is doing something wrong: “You left this place a mess!” “You didn’t keep your promise!” “You’re really crude sometimes!” “You” language is likely to arouse defensiveness. It implies that the speaker is qualified to judge the target—not an idea that most listeners are willing to accept. “I” language provides a more accurate and less provocative way to express a complaint (Simmons et al., 2005). By using “I” language, you can describe your reaction to someone’s behavior, taking responsibility for your statement without expressing judgment. Communicators who use these kinds of “I” messages engage in assertiveness—clearly expressing their thoughts, feelings, and wants (Alberti & Emmons, 2008). Assertive messages are composed of three different types of “I” statements. One describes the other person’s behavior; one describes your feelings; and one describes the consequences the other’s behavior has for you. Here are some examples of complete assertive messages: “I get embarrassed [your feeling] when I hear you talk about my poor grades in front of our friends [the behavior you observed]. I’m afraid they’ll think I’m stupid [the possible consequence].” “Because I was waiting for you to pick me up this morning [behavior], I was late for class and wound up getting chewed out by the professor [consequences]. That’s why I got so angry [feeling].”

153

154

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

“I haven’t been very affectionate [consequence] because I’ve noticed that you’ve hardly spent any time with me in the past few weeks [behavior]. I’m confused [feeling] about how you feel about me.” When the chances of being misunderstood or getting a defensive reaction are high, it’s a good idea to include all three elements in your assertive message. In some cases, however, using only one or two of them will get the job done: “I’m feeling annoyed because I went to a lot of trouble fixing this dinner, and now it’s cold.” [The behavior is obvious.] “I’m worried because I haven’t heard from you.” [“Worried” is both a feeling and a consequence in this statement.] Even the best-constructed and best-delivered “I” message won’t always receive a nondefensive response (Bippus & Young, 2005). As Thomas Gordon (1970) points out, “nobody welcomes hearing that his behavior is causing someone a problem, no matter how the message is phrased” (p. 145). Furthermore, “I” language in large doses can start to sound egotistical (Proctor, 1989). Research shows that self-absorbed people, also known as “conversational narcissists,” can be identified by their constant use of first-person singular pronouns (Vangelisti et al., 1990; Zimmermann et al., 2013). For this reason, “I” language works best in moderation. One way to avoid overuse of “I” language is to consider the pronoun we. “We” language implies that the issue is the concern and responsibility of both the speaker and receiver of a message. Consider a few examples: “We have a problem. We can’t seem to talk about money without fighting.” “We aren’t doing a very good job of keeping the apartment clean, are we?” “We need to talk to your parents about whether we’ll visit them for the holidays.” “We” language can help build a constructive climate. It suggests a kind of “we’re in this together” orientation, a component of what is known as verbal immediacy (Turman, 2008). In one study (Fitzsimons & Kay, 2004), strangers who were required to use “we” instead of “you and I” in their interactions felt closer to one another after doing so. Couples who use “we” language are more satisfied and manage conflict better than those who rely more heavily on “I” and “you” pronouns (Seider et al., 2009). “Wetalk” is also helpful for couples when one partner is dealing with a health issue (Rohrbaugh et al., 2012). Using plural pronouns suggests the medical problem is “ours” rather than “mine” or “yours.” On the other hand, using the pronoun “we” can be presumptuous and even demanding because you are speaking for the other person as well as for yourself (Rentscher et al., 2013). It’s easy to imagine someone responding to the statement “We have a problem . . .” by saying “Maybe you have a problem, but don’t tell me I do!” Look again at the “we” language examples offered above and imagine that you don’t agree with the

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

TABLE 5.2 Pros, Pronoun

“I” Language

“You” Language

155

Cons, and Recommendations for Using “I,” “You,” and “We” Language Pros

Cons

Recommendations

• Takes responsibility for personal thoughts, feelings, and wants.

• Can be perceived as egotistical, narcissistic, and self-absorbed.

• Use descriptive “I” messages in conflicts or confrontations when the other person does not perceive a problem.

• Less defense provoking than evaluative “you” language.

• Combine “I” with “we” language in conversations.

• Signals otherorientation, particularly when the topic is positive.

• Can sound evaluative and judgmental, particularly during confrontations.

• Avoid during confrontations. • Use “you” language when praising or including others.

• Signals inclusion, immediacy, cohesiveness, and commitment.

• Can speak improperly for others.

• Use in group settings to enhance sense of unity.

“We” Language

• Avoid when expressing personal thoughts, feelings, and wants. • Combine with “I” language, particularly in personal conversations.

speaker’s conclusions. In that case, you would probably feel defensive rather than included. As Table 5.2 summarizes, all three pronouns—I, you, and we—have their advantages and disadvantages. Given this fact, what advice can we give about the most effective pronouns to use in interpersonal communication? One study (Proctor & Wilcox, 1993) offers an answer. The researchers found that “I”/“we” combinations (e.g., “I think that we . . .” or “I would like to see us . . .”) were strongly endorsed by college students, particularly for confrontational conversations in romantic relationships (cf. Sendén et al., 2014). Richard Slatcher and his associates (2008) came to a similar conclusion: There is value in both “I” and “we” messages in relational communication, as these pronouns demonstrate both autonomy and connection (see Chapter 9 for a discussion of these relational dialectics). Because too much of any pronoun comes across as inappropriate, combining pronouns is generally a good idea—and it suggests you’re able to see things from multiple perspectives (Pennebaker, 2011). If your “I” language reflects your position without being overly self-absorbed, your “you” language shows concern for others without judging them, and your “we” language includes others without speaking for them, you will probably come as close as possible to the ideal mix of pronouns.

156

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

GENDER AND LANGUAGE So far we have discussed language usage as if it were identical for women and men. Are there differences between male and female language use? If so, how important are they?

EXTENT OF GENDER DIFFERENCES Some people believe that men and women communicate in significantly different ways, whereas others find far more similarities than differences. We outline two approaches that represent two different sides in the gender and language debate.

Approach 1: Significant Differences In 1992, John Gray argued that men and women are so fundamentally different that they might as well have come from separate planets. In his best-selling book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, he claimed: Men and women differ in all areas of their lives. Not only do men and women communicate differently but they think, feel, perceive, react, respond, love, need, and appreciate differently. They almost seem to be from different planets, speaking different languages and needing different nourishment. (p. 5)

Gray’s work is based largely on anecdotes and conjecture and lacks scholarly support. However, social scientists have acknowledged that there are some significant differences in the way men and women behave socially (Palomares, 2008; Wood & Fixmer-Oraiz, 2017). These findings have led some scholars to describe males and females as members of distinct cultures, with their differences arising primarily from socialization rather than biology. The best known advocate of this “two-culture” theory is sociolinguist Deborah Tannen (1990, 1994, 2001). She suggests that men and women grow up learning different rules about how to speak and act. In support of the two-culture hypothesis, communication researcher Anthony Mulac (2006; see also Mulac et al., 2013) reports that men are more likely than women to speak in sentence fragments (“Nice photo.”). Men more typically talk about themselves with “I” references (“I have a lot of meetings”) and use more judgmental language. They are also more likely to make directive statements. By contrast, Mulac finds that female speech is more tentative, elaborate, and emotional. For instance, women’s sentences are typically longer than men’s. Women also make more reference to feelings and use intensive adverbs (“He’s really interested”) that paint a more complete verbal picture. In addition, female speech is often less assertive. It contains more statements of uncertainty (“It seems to be . . .”), hedges (“We’re kind of set in our ways.”), and tag questions (“Do you think so?”). Some theorists have argued that such differences cause women’s speech to be less powerful, but more inclusive, than men’s. Communication scholar Julia Wood (Wood & Fixmer-Oraiz, 2017) has devoted much of her career to analyzing the impact of sex and gender

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

TABLE 5.3 Differences

in Feminine and Masculine Communication Practices Feminine

Masculine

Converse to maintain relationships

Converse to establish control

Create a climate of equality

Create a sense of power and status

Offer emotional support

Solve tasks and problems

Ask questions

Make statements

Offer concrete personal disclosures

Make abstract generalizations

Speak tentatively (often to be polite)

Speak assertively (often to be in charge)

Adapted from Wood, J. T., & Fixmer-Oraiz, N. (2017). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, & culture (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.

on communication. While she maintains that Gray’s “Mars and Venus” approach is an overstatement that can do more harm than good, she acknowledges there are differences in what she terms “feminine and masculine communication practices,” as summarized in Table 5.3.

Approach 2: Minor Differences Despite the differences in the way men and women speak, the link between gender and language use isn’t as clear-cut as it might seem (Timmerman, 2002). One meta-analysis involving more than 3,000 participants found that women were only slightly more likely than men to use tentative speech (Leaper & Robnett, 2011). Three other analyses (Leaper & Ayres, 2007) looked for gender differences in adults’ talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech—and found negligible differences for all three language constructs. In essence, these studies showed that men’s and women’s speech are far more similar than different. A recent study offers further support for the “minor differences” approach (Hancock et al., 2015). Researchers asked men and women to describe a health-related episode in their lives. Analysis of the transcripts revealed that women used slightly more intense adverbs and personal pronouns than men did. However, participants who read the transcripts were largely unable to identify the speaker’s gender. The same researchers then asked men, women, and transgender women to describe a painting. Studied closely, the transgender women’s word choices were slightly more similar to men’s than to women’s—but again, most people could not distinguish between them on the basis of word choice. In light of the considerable similarities in language use across gender, communication researcher Kathryn Dindia (2006) suggests that the “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” claim should be replaced by the metaphor that “men are from North Dakota, women are from South Dakota.”

157

158

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

NON-GENDER INFLUENCES ON LANGUAGE USE Gender isn’t the only factor that influences how women and men use language. Other factors can outweigh, or at least mitigate, the influences of gender when it comes to language use. Occupation is one such factor. As an example, male and female athletes communicate in similar ways (Sullivan, 2004). Male day care teachers’ speech to their students resembles the language of female teachers more closely than it resembles the language of fathers at home (Gleason & Greif, 1983). Female farm operators, working in a maleWhen occupational roles drive conversation, gender differences dominated world, reproduce the masculinity that in language use can fade or disappear. Are there occasions in spells success for their male counterparts, swearyour life when the influence of gender disappears from your conversations? ing and talking “tough as nails” (Pilgeram, 2007). Another factor that can trump gender is power. For instance, in gay and lesbian relationships, the conversational styles of partners are more strongly linked to power differences in the relationship (e.g., who is earning more money) than to gender (Steen & Schwartz, 1995). There are also few differences between the way men and women use threatening speech when they have the same amount of bargaining strength in a negotiation (Scudder & Andrews, 1995). Findings like these suggest that characteristically feminine or masculine speech has been less a function of gender or sex than of social power historically. In fact, differences in social status often show up more clearly in language than gender differences do (Pennebaker, 2011). What then is the verdict on gender’s effects on language? The simple answer is that there are some differences between male and female language patterns. However, those distinctions may not be as significant as some claim— and they might occur for reasons other than the gender or biological sex of the communicator. Language differences by gender are sometimes easier to spot and measure in online communication, as we discuss in the next section.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND LANGUAGE The principles described so far in this chapter apply to language in both face-to-face interaction and mediated communication. However, researchers have begun to discover some unique dimensions of language as it is used in social media. In this section, we focus on two topics covered throughout this book—impression management and gender—and describe how they show up in online language choices.

ONLINE LANGUAGE AND IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT As we noted in Chapter 3, much of online communication is an exercise in impression management. For example, text message errors can make the sender look bad to some recipients (such as professors, bosses, and

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

customers), so it’s important to manage those impressions. One way to do so is by using a block signature indicating that a text message was typed on a mobile device (Carr & Stefaniak, 2012). Some texters’ signatures pointblank say, “This was written on my cell phone, so please excuse the likely errors.” This in essence shifts the blame for the mistakes from the message sender to the device. Dating websites are all about impression management (Tomlinson, 2013). Subscribers to online dating services can manipulate not only their photos and videos but also their self-descriptions. Women are more likely than men to lie about their weight on dating sites, whereas men more often misrepresent their professions and income (Huestis, 2010). Even a person’s first name can create an online impression (Gebauer et al., 2012). A German study found that men named Alexander were 102 percent more likely to get visits on a dating site than those named Kevin. (Although Kevin is a popular name in the United States, it is so unpopular in German-speaking countries that its negative appraisal is dubbed “Kevinism.”) Impression management isn’t restricted to the search for romantic partners. Facebook friends also try to put their best foot forward with strategic language choices (Bazarova et al., 2012). They tend to use more positive emotion words in their public status updates, projecting an upbeat persona, than in private messages. In addition, Facebook users choose warmer language when posting on a close friend’s wall than on a distant acquaintance’s, indicating their friendship status to a larger audience.

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

The Language of Online Community Wikipedia is more than just a free encyclopedia. It’s also a community of editors and administrators who work together online, building relationships as they go. A team led by Daniela Iosub analyzed the contributors’ “talk pages” to see what they reveal about the language patterns of the Wikipedia community. The researchers collected data from nearly 12,000 contributors who had written at least 100 comments apiece on the English Wikipedia talk pages. After running the data through lexiconbased computer programs, the analysts drew conclusions related to status and gender. Status: Administrators, who hold a higher rank than editors, tend to use more neutral, impersonal, and formal words. Editors, on the other hand, communicate more emotionally and relationally—that is, they use language to form and maintain connections

with each other. An administrator might say, “That idea has merit.” An editor might phrase it this way: “I really like your suggestion.” Gender: Compared with male contributors, women tend to communicate in ways that promote social and emotional connection (“We’re making good progress—thanks for your input”), regardless of their status in the community. Female editors are the most relationship-oriented, whereas male administrators are the least. The researchers suggest that if the Wikipedia community wants to grow, its administrators would do well to adopt a more relational style of communicating. One way to achieve this would be to increase the number of female administrators. An alternative would be for male contributors to develop a warmer, more personal style—because that helps build community.

Iosub, D., Laniado, D., Castillo, C., Morell, M. F., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2014). Emotions under discussion: Gender, status and communication in online collaboration. PLoS ONE, 9, e104880.

159

160

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Although email has become a less popular means of online communication, it’s still a mainstay in the business world. Executives acknowledge that they attempt to manage impressions in the way they craft their emails (Caron et al., 2013). For instance, their professional messages are less formal when written on smartphones than on office computers. Those sent from mobile devices often begin without a salutation and go straight into business talk. When written from an office computer, they tend to start with a greeting and first name (“Hello, Mary”). Email closings follow a similar pattern. Executives say this isn’t an accident—when communicating by smartphone, they want to give the impression that they are busy and “don’t have time to be friendly.”

ONLINE LANGUAGE AND GENDER Research shows that men and women have different written language styles (Pennebaker, 2011), which shows up in online communication (Hosseinei & Tammimy, 2016). For instance, men tend to use more large words, nouns, and swear words than women do. By contrast, women use more personal pronouns, verbs, and hedge phrases (e.g., “I think”). Of course, word count doesn’t tell the whole story. For instance, whereas women and men use the word “we” about equally, they do so in different ways. Closer scrutiny suggests that women are more likely to use what’s known as the “warm we” (“We have so much fun together”), while men are more inclined toward the “distant we” (“We need to do something about this.”). Although there are indeed gender differences in written language usage, they aren’t absolute. Computer programs can correctly identify the sex of an author 67 to 72 percent of the time (50 percent is chance). Data gathered from social networking sites show even greater distinctions. In one study, researchers analyzed more than 15 million Facebook status updates from approximately 75,000 volunteers over a 34-month period (Schwartz et al., 2013). There were marked differences in male and female language use (and also between people of different ages and personalities). Women used more emotion words (“excited”; “wonderful”) and first-person singular pronouns, and they made more references to the people in their lives. Men made more object references (“game”;

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

161

“government”; “Xbox”) and swore far more often—a finding that seems to hold true across every study conducted about male and female word use. It appears that people are intuitively aware of gender differences in online language. For instance, one study found that online communicators adopt different writing styles depending on their online gender identities (Palomares & Lee, 2010). Participants were given randomly selected gendered avatars—some matching their biological sex, some not. Communicators who were assigned feminine avatars expressed more emotion, made more apologies, and used more tentative language than did those with masculine avatars. In other words, participants adapted their language to match linguistic gender stereotypes. Online language differences between the sexes are more pronounced among adolescents. A study looked at the word choices of teenage boys and girls in chat rooms (Kapidzic & Herring, 2011). The boys were more active and assertive, initiating interaction and making proposals, whereas the girls were more reactive (“wow”; “omg”; “lmao”). The boys were also more flirtatious and sexual (“any hotties wanna chat?”). The researchers noted that these accentuated differences were probably due to the age of the participants and that some of the distinctions would likely recede in adulthood. It’s important to remember that the words you use online say a lot about you. They reflect who you are and how you feel about others. And keep in mind that online messages can be recorded and saved. They can leave lasting reminders of your affinity for others, or they might come back to haunt you. As is true of face-to-face interaction, choose and use your words carefully.

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING Objective 5.1 Explain the symbolic, rule-

Objective 5.2 Recognize the impact,

Language is both a marvelous communication tool and the source of many interpersonal problems. Every language is a collection of symbols governed by a variety of rules. Because of its symbolic nature, language is not a precise vehicle; its meanings rest in people, not in words themselves. Finally, the very language we speak can shape our worldview.

Language both reflects and shapes the perceptions of its users. For example, names that people are given can influence their identity and the way they are viewed by others. Language also reflects the level of affiliation communicators have with each other. And language patterns reflect and shape a speaker’s perceived power. Finally, language can reflect and influence sexist and racist attitudes. When used carelessly, language can lead to a variety of interpersonal problems. The level of precision or vagueness of messages can affect a receiver’s

based, subjective, culture-bound nature of language.

Q: Describe how a recent, important communicative exchange from your life illustrates the symbolic, rule-based, subjective, culture-bound nature of language.

both positive and negative, of language in interpersonal relationships.

162

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

understanding of them. Both precise messages and vague, evasive messages have their uses in interpersonal relationships; and a competent communicator has the ability to choose the optimal level of precision for the situation at hand. Competent communicators also know how to use “I,” “you,” and “we” statements to accept the optimal level of responsibility and relational harmony. Using emotive terms can lead to unnecessary disharmony in interpersonal relationships. Q: Analyze your language use over two days to identify both how it facilitates relationships and how it creates interpersonal problems.

Objective 5.3 Describe the influence

gender has on language use in interpersonal relationships. The relationship between gender and language is a complex one. Although some writers in the popular press have argued that men and women are radically different and thus speak different languages, this position isn’t supported by scholarship.

A growing body of research suggests that what differences do exist are relatively minor in light of the similarities between the sexes. Many of the language differences that first appear to be sex-related may actually be due to other factors such as occupation and interpersonal power. Q: Identify similarities and differences in male and female language use, and provide explanations for such differences.

Objective 5.4 Identify ways in which

online language usage is different from the in-person variety. Language use in social media has some distinct features. Word choice is an important component of online impression management. Gender differences are also more pronounced (or at least more measurable) when written via social media. Q: Analyze your social media messages to see whether they reflect the identity you wish to project.

KEY TERMS Abstraction ladder (149) Ambiguous language (148) Assertiveness (153) “But” statement (153) Convergence (142) Divergence (143) Euphemism (150) Evaluative language (152)

“I” language (152) “It” statement (152) Linguistic relativity (139) Phonological rules (137) Politeness (144) Powerful language (143) Powerless language (143) Pragmatic rules (138)

Racist language (147) Relative language (151) Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (139) Semantic rules (138) Sexist language (145) Syntactic rules (137) “We” language (154) “You” language (153)

ACTIVITIES 1. Working with a group of classmates, describe one syntactic, one semantic, and one pragmatic rule for each situation: a. Asking an acquaintance out for a first date. b. Declining an invitation to a party. c. Responding to a stranger who has just said “excuse me” after bumping into you in a crowd.

2. The information about the impact of language on pages 141–155 shows how the words a communicator chooses can shape others’ perceptions. Create and present to your class two scenarios for each type of linguistic influence in the following list. The first should describe how the type of influence could be used constructively, and the

CH A PT ER 5 L anguage

163

second should describe an unethical application of this knowledge.

“Don’t be so touchy!”

a. Naming and identity

Now think of three “you” statements you could make to people in your life. Transform each of these statements into “I” and “we” language, and rehearse them with a classmate. 5. Some authors believe that differences between male and female communication are so great that they can be characterized as “men are from Mars, women are from Venus.” Other researchers believe the differences aren’t nearly so dramatic and would describe them as “men are from North Dakota, women are from South Dakota.” Which approach seems more accurate to you? Offer experiences from your life to support your point of view.

b. Affiliation c. Power d. Sexism and racism

3. Translate the following into behavioral language and share with your classmates to get their feedback. a. An abstract goal for improving your interpersonal communication (e.g., “Be more assertive” or “Stop being so sarcastic”). b. A complaint you have about another person (for instance, that he or she is “selfish” or “insensitive”).

In both cases, describe the person or people involved, the circumstances in which the communication will take place, and the precise behaviors involved. What difference will using the behavioral descriptions be likely to make in your relationships? 4. With a group of classmates, practice rephrasing each of the following “you” statements in “I” and/or “we” language: “You’re not telling me the truth!”

“You don’t understand a word I’m saying!”

6. Do you communicate differently online or by text than in person? Does your social media language differ depending on the medium you use? Monitor your communication over three days and see if you “talk” distinctly in text messages, social networking posts, tweets, and blog entries compared with face-to-face communication. Are there some words you’re more prone to use on Facebook, for example, than in person?

“You only think of yourself!”

SCORING FOR ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION (PAGE 146)

Add your responses to the 11 statements, making sure to reverse-score statements 1, 2, and 3 (if you indicated 5, change it to 1; change 4 to 2; change 2 to 4; and change 1 to 5). Scores can range from 11 to 55. Scores that are 38 or higher reflect a supportive attitude toward nonsexist language; scores between 11 and 27 reflect a negative attitude toward nonsexist language; and scores between 28 and 37 reflect a neutral attitude. Scholars note that women are typically less tolerant of sexist language than are men, which may have an impact on these scores (Douglas & Sutton, 2014).

6 Nonverbal Communication LEARNING OBJECTIVES

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Define nonverbal communication. Describe the distinguishing characteristics of nonverbal communication. Identify and offer examples of the various functions that nonverbal communication can serve. Describe how meaning is communicated through particular nonverbal cues.

CHAPTER OUTLINE Nonverbal Communication Defined 166 Characteristics of Nonverbal Communication 167 • Nonverbal Communication Is Always Occurring 167 • Nonverbal Communication Is Primarily Relational 168 • Nonverbal Communication Is Ambiguous 169 • Nonverbal Communication Occurs in Mediated Messages 170 • Nonverbal Communication Is Influenced by Culture and Gender 170

Functions of Nonverbal Communication 172

FEATURES Focus on Research: The Power of Periods. In Texting. 171 Assessing Your Communication: Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors 174 Watch and Discuss: “Body Language” 175 Media Clip: A Life of Deception: The Americans 176 Media Clip: In a Different Voice: Speechless 179 Focus on Research: Nonverbal Imitation: The Sincerest Form of Flattery 180 At Work: Let Your Voice Be Heard 183 Dark Side of Communication: The Inequality of “Lookism” 188

• Creating and Maintaining Relationships 172 • Regulating Interaction 173 • Influencing Others 175 • Influencing Ourselves 175 • Concealing/Deceiving 175 • Managing Impressions 177

Types of Nonverbal Communication 178 • Body Movement 178 • Touch 181 • Voice 182 • Distance 184 • Territoriality 187 • Time 187 • Physical Attractiveness 188 • Clothing 189 • Physical Environment 189 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 190 KEY TERMS 191 ACTIVITIES 192

165

166

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

People don’t always say what they mean . . . but their gestures and movements tell the truth! Will he ask you out? Is she encouraging you? Learn the secret language of body signals. You can improve your: sex life . . . social life . . . business life . . . Read Body Language to reveal the secrets. . . Do his eyes say he’s interested? Do her facial expressions say she’s a manipulator? Does the way he’s standing say he’s a player?

LMOST EVERY pharmacy, supermarket, and airport book rack has its share of “body language” paperbacks with claims such as these. Popular seminars and YouTube videos make similar assertions. They promise you can learn secrets that will transform you from a bumbling social failure into a self-assured mind reader. Such claims are almost always exaggerations or fabrications. Don’t misunder stand: There is a scientific body of knowledge about nonverbal communication, and it has provided many fascinating and valuable clues to human behavior. That’s what this chapter is about. It’s unlikely the next few pages will turn you instantly into a rich, sexy, charming communication superstar, but don’t go away. Even without glamorous promises, a quick look at some facts about nonverbal communication shows that it’s an important and valuable field to study—and that nonverbal skills are worth acquiring (Riggio, 2006).

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION DEFINED If non means “not” and verbal means “with words,” then it seems logical that nonverbal communication would involve “communication without words.” This definition is an oversimplification, however, because it fails to distinguish between vocal communication (with the voice) and verbal communication (with words). Some nonverbal messages have a vocal element. For example, the words “I love you” have different meanings depending on the way they are spoken. Furthermore, some nonspoken forms of communication, including sign languages used in the Deaf community, are actually linguistic and not really nonverbal in the sense most social scientists use the term. Therefore, a better definition of nonverbal communication is “messages expressed by nonlinguistic means.” These nonlinguistic messages are important because what we do often conveys more meaning than what we say. One early study (Mehrabian, 1972) claimed that 93 percent of the emotional impact of a message comes from a nonverbal source, whereas only a paltry 7 percent is verbal. Another (Birdwhistell, 1970) described a 65–35 percent split between actions and words, respectively. Although social scientists have disputed these figures

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

167

and the relative importance of verbal versus nonverbal cues (e.g., Lapakko, 1997; Nagel et al., 2012), the point remains: Nonverbal communication contributes a great deal to shaping perceptions. You might ask how nonverbal communication can be so powerful. At first glance, it seems as if meanings come from words. To answer this question, recall a time when you observed speakers of an unfamiliar language communicating. Although you couldn’t understand the words being spoken, there were likely plenty of clues that gave you an idea of what was going on in the exchange. By Minions use an incomprehensible “language,” but audiences sense of their messages by interpreting nonverbal, paratuning into facial expressions, postures, gestures, make linguistic, and contextual cues. What might you infer about vocal tones, and other behaviors, you probably the relationships in the photo above? gained a sense of the communicators’ relationship. Researchers (summarized in Knapp & Hall, 2010) have found that subjects who hear content-free speech—ordinary speech that has been electronically manipulated so that the words are unintelligible—can consistently recognize the emotion being expressed and identify its strength.

CHARACTERISTICS OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION As Table 6.1 shows, verbal and nonverbal communication differ in a number of important ways. We now take a look at five characteristics of nonverbal communication.

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IS ALWAYS OCCURRING Some theorists suggest that all nonverbal behavior communicates information. They argue that it is impossible not to communicate. You can TABLE 6.1 Some

Differences Between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication

Verbal Communication

Nonverbal Communication

• Mostly voluntary and conscious

• Often unconscious

• Usually content oriented

• Usually relational

• Can be clear or vague

• Inherently ambiguous

• Primarily shaped by culture

• Rooted in biology

• Discontinuous/intermittent

• Continuous

• Single channel (words only)

• Multichanneled

168

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

understand the impossibility of non-communication by considering what you would do if someone told you not to communicate any messages at all. Even if you closed your eyes or left the room, these behaviors would communicate messages that mean you’re avoiding contact. One study (DePaulo, 1992) took just this approach. When communicators were told not to express nonverbal clues, others viewed them as dull, withdrawn, uneasy, aloof, and deceptive. The impossibility of not communicating is significant because it means that each of us is a kind of transmitter that cannot be shut off. No matter what we do, we send out messages that say something about ourselves and our relationships with others. If, for instance, others were observing you now, what nonverbal clues would they get about how you’re feeling? Are you sitting forward or reclining? Is your posture tense or relaxed? What does your facial expression communicate now? Can you make your face expressionless? Don’t people with expressionless faces communicate something to you? Even uncontrollable behaviors can convey a message. You may not intend to show that you’re embarrassed, but your blushing can still be a giveaway. Of course, not all behaviors (intentional or not) will be interpreted correctly: Your trembling hands might be taken as a sign of nervousness when you’re really just shivering from the cold. But whether or not your behavior is intentional, and whether or not it is interpreted accurately, all nonverbal behavior has the potential to create messages.

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IS PRIMARILY RELATIONAL Some nonverbal messages serve practical functions, such as when a police officer directs the flow of traffic. But nonverbal communication also serves in a far more common (and more interesting) series of social functions. Nonverbal communication allows us to demonstrate the kind of relationships we have—or want to have—with others (Burgoon & Le Poire, 1999; Myers et al., 2011). You can appreciate this fact by thinking about the wide range of ways you could behave when greeting another person. You could wave, shake hands, nod, smile, clap the other person on the

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

back, give a hug, or avoid all contact. Each one of these behaviors sends a message about the nature of your relationship with the other person. Nonverbal messages perform another valuable social function: They convey emotions that we may be unwilling or unable to express, or ones we may not even be aware of. In fact, nonverbal communication is much better suited to expressing attitudes and feelings than it is ideas. You can prove this for yourself by imagining how you could express each item on the following list nonverbally: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

“I’m tired.” “I’m in favor of capital punishment.” “I’m attracted to another person in the group.” “I think school prayer should be allowed.” “I’m angry at someone in this room.”

This experience shows that, short of charades, ideas (such as statements 2 and 4) don’t lend themselves to nonverbal expressions nearly as well as attitudes and feelings (statements 1, 3, and 5). This explains why it’s possible to understand the attitudes or feelings of others by reading nonverbal cues, even if you aren’t able to understand the subject of their communication.

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IS AMBIGUOUS In Chapter 5, we pointed out how some language can be ambiguous. (For example, the statement “That nose piercing really makes you stand out” could be a compliment or a criticism; and the vague statement “I’m almost done” could mean you have to wait a few minutes or an hour.) Most nonverbal behavior has the potential to be even more ambiguous than verbal statements such as these. To understand why, consider how you would interpret silence from your companion during an evening together. Think of all the possible meanings of this nonverbal behavior: warmth, anger, preoccupation, boredom, nervousness, thoughtfulness—the possibilities are many. A supermarket chain inadvertently illustrated the ambiguity of nonverbal behavior when it instructed employees to smile and make eye contact with customers. Unfortunately, some customers mistook the servicewith-a-smile approach as sexual come-ons. As this story suggests, nonverbal cues are much more ambiguous than verbal statements when it comes to expressing a willingness to become physically involved (La France, 2010). Because nonverbal behavior is so ambiguous, caution is wise when you are responding to nonverbal cues. Rather than jumping to conclusions about the meaning of a sigh, smile, slammed door, or yawn, it’s far better to use the kind of perception-checking approach described in Chapter 4. “When you yawned, I thought I was boring you. But maybe you’re just tired. What’s going on?” Considering more than one possible interpretation for nonverbal behavior is an element of communication competence. Popular advice on the subject notwithstanding, it’s usually not possible to read a person like a book.

169

170

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION OCCURS IN MEDIATED MESSAGES Not all mediated communication is verbal. Video calls obviously provide nonverbal information, as do photos on social networking sites. Even textbased digital communication has nonverbal features. The most obvious way to represent nonverbal expressions in type is with emoticons, using keyboard characters such as :-) for a smile or :-O to express surprise. Many programs now turn these keystroke combinations into graphic icons, known as emoji. Emoticons and emoji can sometimes clarify a meaning that isn’t evident from words alone (Derks et al., 2007; Lo, 2008). For example, see how each graphic below creates a different meaning for the same statement: • You are driving me crazy • You are driving me crazy • You are driving me crazy Yet the meaning of emoticons and emoji can be ambiguous (Skovholt etal., 2014). A smiley face could have a number of meanings, such as “I’m really happy,” “I’m only kidding,” or “I’m teasing you.” Other online communication markers are also ambiguous (Vandergriff, 2013). Exclamation marks (sometimes more than one!!!) can be used at the end of sentences, or even by themselves, to denote a variety of emotional states. Ellipses (...) at the end of a phrase can signal displeasure, thoughtfulness, or confusion. They can also be turn-taking signals, similar to what you might convey facially or with pauses during in-person conversations. The same is true of “lexical surrogates” such as “hmmm” or “ooooh,” with meanings ranging from delight to disapproval. Even clicking “Like” or “+1” has a variety of content and relational meanings (Hayes et al., 2016). The Focus on Research sidebar in this section describes the potential impact of a simple period at the end of a text message. Not only does the content of a nonverbal message matter, but when it is sent matters as well (Ledbetter, 2008; Walther, 2009). If you’ve ever been upset by a friend who hasn’t responded punctually to one of your texts, then you know the role that timeliness plays in mediated interpersonal communication. We talk more about the management of time later in this chapter, but here we note that it’s a vital feature of online interaction (Kalman et al., 2013). It’s also a good example of the principle that you cannot not communicate. Communicators have expectations about when others should reply to their posts, emails, and text messages, and they may perceive delays negatively.

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IS INFLUENCED BYCULTURE AND GENDER Cultures differ in their nonverbal languages as well as their verbal ones (Hasler et al., 2017). Fiorello La Guardia, legendary mayor of New York

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

171

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

The Power of Periods. In Texting. It’s Saturday night, and you text your friends to see if they want to get together. You get some affirmative emojis in response. Others use positive words such as “Okay,” “Yeah,” and “Yup” without punctuation—but a few end their one-word re sponses with a period: “Sure.” Does the punctuation make a difference in how you perceive the message? Based on their findings, Professor Danielle Gunraj and her colleagues would answer “Yes.” The researchers showed 126 undergraduates a series of question–answer exchanges similar to the one described above. Some were framed as text messages; others as handwritten notes. When the one-word text responses were followed by a period, the students viewed them as less sincere than those without punctuation. It’s worth noting that the presence of a period didn’t make a

difference in the handwritten exchanges, suggesting this is a phenomenon unique to texting. Although the study was modest, it got a lot of press. Writing in The Washington Post, one pundit said it confirmed that “ending your texts with a period is truly monstrous. We all know this. Grammar be darned, it just doesn’t look friendly” (Feltman, 2015). Linguist David Crystal declared, “The period now has an emotional charge and has become an emoticon of sorts.” He believes it can be deployed to show irony, snark, and even aggression (Bilefsky, 2016). Perhaps that’s reading a lot into a tiny dot. But that’s the nature of nonverbal communication: It’s ambiguous, relational, and sometimes more significant than the words it accompanies.

Gunraj, D. N., Drumm-Hewitt, A. M., Dashow, E. M., Upadhyay, S. S. N., & Kline, C. M. (2016). Texting insincerely: The role of the period in text messages. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1067–1075.

from 1933 to 1945, was fluent in English, Italian, and Yiddish. Watching films of his campaign speeches with no sound, researchers found they could tell the language La Guardia was speaking based solely on the changes in his nonverbal behavior (Birdwhistell, 1970). Some nonverbal behaviors—called emblems—are culturally understood substitutes for verbal expressions (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013). Nodding the head up and down is an accepted way of saying “yes” in most cultures. Likewise, a side-to-side head shake is a nonverbal way of saying “no,” and a shrug of the shoulders is commonly understood as meaning “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure.” Remember, however, that some emblems— such as the thumbs-up gesture—vary from one culture to another. It means “Good job!” in the United States, the number 1 in Germany, and the number 5 in Japan. Most North Americans would say the hand gesture in the photo on page 172 means “Okay.” But to a Buddhist it signifies acceptance of the world as it is, and in Greece and Turkey its meaning is vulgar. Culture also affects how nonverbal cues are monitored. In Japan, for instance, people tend to look to the eyes for emotional cues, whereas Americans and Europeans focus on the mouth (Yuki et al., 2007). These differences can be seen in the text-based emoticons used in these cultures (Park et al., 2014). American emoticons focus on mouth expressions, whereas Japanese emoticons feature the eyes (search in your web browser for “Western and Eastern emoticons” for examples).

172

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

A variety of cultural norms guide nonverbal expressiveness (Matsumoto, 2006). In some cultures, overt demonstrations of feelings such as happiness or anger are discouraged. In other cultures, the same expressions are perfectly appropriate. Thus, a Korean person might appear much more nonverbally controlled than an Italian person, when in fact their feelings might be identical. It’s important to note that the culture in which people live is far more important than their nationality or ethnicity. For example, the facial expressions of Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans differ in ways that reflect their cultural backgrounds (Marsh et al., 2003). See Chapter2 for more discussion of the impact of culture on nonverbal communication. Gender also influences nonverbal communication—and with rare exceptions, differences between sexes hold true across cultures (Knapp & Hall, 2010). In general, women are more nonverbally expressive than men, and they are more accurate in interpreting others’ nonverbal behavior (Hall & Andrzejewski, 2017). More specifically, research summarized by Judith Hall (2006b) shows that, compared to men, women typically

Emblems that seem to have obvious meanings to you can have entirely different significance in other cultures. How can you avoid mistakes in using and interpreting nonverbal behavior when encountering people from different cultural backgrounds?

• Smile more • Use more facial expression • Use more (but less expansive) head, hand, and arm gestures • Touch others more • Stand closer to others • Are more vocally expressive • Make more eye contact

Despite these differences, men’s and women’s nonverbal communication patterns have a good deal in common (Dindia, 2006; Hall, 2006a). Moreover, male–female nonverbal differences are less pronounced in conversations between gay and lesbian participants (Knöfler & Imhof, 2007). Gender and culture certainly have an influence on nonverbal style, but the differences are often a matter of degree rather than kind.

FUNCTIONS OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION Now that you understand what nonverbal communication is, we need to explore the functions it serves in relationships. As you’ll read, nonverbal cues play several important roles in the way we relate with others (TingToomey, 2017).

CREATING AND MAINTAINING RELATIONSHIPS As you will read in Chapter 9, communication is our primary means for beginning, maintaining, and ending relationships. Nonverbal behavior plays an important role during every relational stage.

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

Consider the importance of nonverbal communication at the beginning of a relationship. When we first meet another person, our initial goal is to reduce our uncertainty about her or him (Berger, 1987, 2011). We ask ourselves questions such as “Would I like to know this person better?” and “Is this person interested in me?” One of the first ways we answer these questions is by observing nonverbal cues, including facial expression, eye contact, posture, gesture, and tone of voice (Berger & Kellermann, 1994). This process occurs quite rapidly—often in a matter of seconds (Zebrowitz & Montepare, 2008). At the same time we are sizing up others, we are providing nonverbal cues about our attitude toward them. We rarely share these thoughts and feelings overtly. Imagine how odd it would be to say or hear words such as “I’m friendly and relaxed” or “You look pretty interesting, but I won’t pursue this unless you give me a sign that you’re interested too.” Messages like these are much more safely expressed via nonverbal channels. Of course, it’s important to remember that nonverbal cues are ambiguous and that you may be misinterpreting them (Mehrabian, 2008). You might want to get an outside evaluation to check your perceptions (“Is it my imagination, or is she checking me out?”). Nonverbal cues are also important in established, ongoing r elationships: They both help create and signal the emotional climate. For example, nonverbal displays of affection—such as sitting close, holding hands, winking, and gazing—are strongly connected to satisfaction and commitment in romantic relationships (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2010). In families, nonverbal cues offer a clear sign of relational satisfaction (Rogers, 2001), and managing their meaning is vital to successful parent–child interaction (Grebelsky-Lichtman, 2014, 2015). On the job, supervisors who offer nonverbal cues of liking can increase subordinates’ job motivation, job satisfaction, and affinity for their boss (Teven, 2010). You can test the power of nonverbal behavior in relationships for yourself. First, observe the interaction of people in relationships without paying attention to their words. Watch couples or families in restaurants or other public places. Focus on the nonverbal behavior of fellow employees or professors and their students. You are likely to see a multitude of cues that suggest the quality of each relationship. Chances are good that you could make educated guesses about whether the people you’re watching are satisfied with each other—and whether their relationship is beginning, being maintained, or ending.

REGULATING INTERACTION Nonverbal regulators are cues that help control verbal interaction. The best example of such regulation is the wide array of turn-taking signals in everyday conversation (Wiemann & Knapp, 2008). Three signals that indicate a speaker has finished talking and is ready to yield to a listener are (1) changes in vocal intonation—a rising or falling in pitch at the end of a clause, (2) a drawl on the last syllable or the stressed syllable in a clause, and (3) a drop in vocal pitch or loudness when speaking a common expression such as “you know.”

173

174

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Eye contact is another way of regulating verbal communication (Bavelas et al., 2002). In conversations, the person listening typically looks more at the speaker than the reverse. When the speaker seeks a response, he or she signals by looking at the listener, creating a brief period of mutual gaze called a “gaze window.” At this point, the listener is likely to respond with a nod, “uh-huh,” or other reaction, after which the speaker looks away and continues speaking.

A S S E S S I N G YO U R CO M M U N I C AT I O N

Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors Most communication researchers agree that nonverbal immediacy—the display of involvement signaled by physical closeness, eye contact, movement, and touch—is an important ingredient of communication competence. You can measure your immediacy by completing this self-assessment. Indicate the degree to which you believe each statement applies to you on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “never” and 5 = “very often.” Then ask someone who knows you well to complete the assessment, requesting that she or he be as honest as possible. When you’re finished, compare notes on your conclusions.

1. I use my hands and arms to gesture while talking to people. 2. I use a monotone or dull voice while talking to people. 3. I avoid eye contact while talking to people. 4. I have a tense body position while talking to people. 5. I am animated when I talk to people. 6. I have a bland facial expression when I talk to people.

7. I am stiff when I talk to people.

8. I have a lot of vocal variety when I talk to people. 9. I lean toward people when I talk to them. 10. I maintain eye contact with people when I talk to them. 11. I smile when I talk to people. 12. I avoid touching people when I talk to them. The 12 items are from the 26-item measure developed by Virginia Richmond and her colleagues. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504–517.

For scoring information, see p. 193 at the end of the chapter.

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

175

INFLUENCING OTHERS How we look, act, and sound can be more important in meeting our goals than the words we speak. The influence of nonverbal behavior comes in many forms. It can capture attention, show or increase liking, generate power, and boost credibility (Cesario & Higgins, 2008; Gifford, 2011). Sometimes deliberately and sometimes without thought, we use nonverbal behaviors in ways that get others to satisfy our wants and needs. For example, people are more willing to do our bidding—at least in the U.S.—when we look them directly in the eye (Segrin, 1993); wear highstatus clothing (Bushman, 1988); use open body postures (Burgoon et al., 1990); touch them appropriately (Guéguen et al., 2010); and behave in a friendly, upbeat way (Kleman, 2008). That’s why job seekers are coached to offer firm handshakes (Stewart et al., 2008) and smile often and genuinely (Krumhuber et al., 2009) to help influence employers to hire them.

INFLUENCING OURSELVES Scholars have long known that nonverbal behavior reflects how a person feels. If you’re happy, you smile; if you’re interested, you make eye contact; if you’re depressed, you slump. But a recent line of research shows the opposite can also occur—that is, if you change your nonverbal behavior, it can affect the way you feel. In essence, your body language influences your emotions. Here are some of the findings: • Adopting expansive poses such as hands on hips or spreading out your arms can increase your sense of power (Carney et al., 2010) and tolerance for pain (Bohns & Wiltermuth, 2012). Holding these postures for just two minutes creates chemical changes in the body—higher testosterone and lower cortisol. • “Jumping for joy” is more than just an emotional reaction. The act of jumping up and down can actually trigger happiness (Shafir et al., 2013). • Sitting up straight can improve your mood and self-esteem, and even your memory (Michalak et al., 2014; Nair et al., 2015). • Smiling for a selfie once a day can improve your mood over time (Chen et al., 2016). This information has practical applications. Amy Cuddy and her colleagues (2015) suggest that prior to a job interview, you can boost your confidence and create a more forceful presence by discretely holding a power pose for a minute or two. In fact, any time you’re feeling nervous or low, performing the nonverbal cues of how you want to feel can help you “fake it ’til you make it.” (See the Watch and Discuss video on this page.)

Watch and Discuss Look up and watch Amy Cuddy’s TED Talk on “Body Language.”

CONCEALING/DECEIVING

1) Consider how kinesics can both reflect and affect how a person feels.

We may value and honor the truth, but many of the messages we exchange are not completely truthful. Sometimes we keep silent, sometimes we hedge, and sometimes we downright lie. As you read in Chapter 3, not

2) Discuss how you might use this information in your own life.

176

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Media Clip

A Life of Deception: TheAmericans The Jennings family seems like an embodiment of the American dream, 1980s style. Elizabeth (Keri Russell) and Philip (Matthew Rhys) run a family business and are parents of two children. They socialize easily with their suburban neighbors, including the FBI agent who lives next door. But Elizabeth and Philip are actually KGB operatives. Raised in the USSR, they are sworn to spy on and disrupt the U.S. government. While their kids are at school or asleep, they change identities and disguises like most people change clothing. Vital to their success as spies is the careful manipulating of their nonverbal communication. They act affectionate when they’re around others, even though their arranged marriage isn’t always happy. They shift accents, don wigs, and plaster on facial expressions that leave no clue to the secrets they’re concealing. Monitoring their nonverbal behavior isn’t just a good idea; for them, it’s a matter of life and death.

all deception is self-serving or malicious; much of it is aimed at saving the “face” of the communicators involved. For example, you might pretend to have a good time at a family celebration or business event, even though you are bored senseless. In other cases, you might lie to save your own face and avoid embarrassment (“Of course I read the message you sent me!”). In situations such as these and many others, it’s easy to see how nonverbal factors can make the face-saving deception either succeed or fail. When verbal and nonverbal messages conflict, we tend to believe the nonverbal. That’s why most people monitor (and self-monitor) nonverbal cues—facial expression, eye contact, posture, vocal pitch and rate—when trying to detect or conceal deception. Communication scholars Judee Burgoon and Tim Levine have studied deception detection for years. In their (2010) review of research on the subject, they came up with what they call “Deception Detection 101”— three findings that have been supported time and again in studies: • We are accurate in detecting deception only slightly more than half the time—in other words, only a shade better than what we could achieve with a coin flip. • We overestimate our abilities to detect others’ lies—in other words, we’re not as good at catching deception as we think we are. • We have a strong tendency to judge others’ messages as truthful—in other words, we want to believe people wouldn’t lie to us (which biases our ability to detect deceit).

These principles serve as a reminder that it’s not easy to determine whether someone is lying—and singular nonverbal cues aren’t dead giveaways (Burgoon et al., 2015). As one writer put it, “There is no unique telltale signal for a fib. Pinocchio’s nose just doesn’t exist, and that makes liars difficult to spot” (Lock, 2004, p. 72). Moreover, some popular prescriptions about liars’ nonverbal behaviors simply aren’t accurate (Guerrero & Floyd, 2006). For instance, conventional wisdom suggests that liars avert their gaze and fidget more than non-liars. Research, however, shows

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

just the opposite: Liars often sustain more eye contact and fidget less, in part because they believe that to do otherwise might look deceitful (Mann et al., 2013). They also make more eye contact to help them determine if the other person believes the tales they’re telling (Jundi et al., 2013). Despite the challenges of detecting deception, there are some nonverbal clues that may reveal it (Ekman, 2009). For example, deceivers typically make more speech errors than truth-tellers: stammers, stutters, hesitations, false starts, and so on. Vocal pitch often rises when people tell lies, and liars pause longer before offering answers than do truth-tellers (Sporer & Schwandt, 2007; Vrij et al., 2000). Perhaps most significantly—because it’s a physiological reaction that’s not easily controlled—liars’ pupils tend to dilate because of the arousal associated with fib-telling (Vrij, 2006). That’s why many professional poker players wear sunglasses to hide what their eyes might reveal. Similar to pupil dilation, the face sometimes reveals a liar’s true feelings in brief, unconscious displays. Researchers call these microexpressions because they happen so quickly (Yan et al., 2013). Without being aware, liars may leak how they genuinely feel through brief furrows of the brow, pursing of the lips, or crinkling around the eyes (Porter et al., 2012). Microexpressions are more likely to occur during what’s known as “highstakes” lying, such as when there are severe punishments for being caught (Ekman, 2009). Keep in mind that slow-motion recordings and trained professionals are often required to pick up these microexpressions. The bottom line is that nonverbal cues offer important information for detecting deception, but most lies aren’t detected through snap judgments of a facial expression or a shift in posture. Jumping to conclusions based on limited information isn’t wise communication, and it may lead to relational difficulties. Handle this material about deception detection with care and good judgment.

MANAGING IMPRESSIONS In Chapter 3, we explained that one major goal of communicating is impression management: getting others to view us as we want to be seen. In many cases, nonverbal cues can be more important than verbal messages in creating impressions (Weisbuch et al., 2010). To appreciate how we manage impressions via nonverbal means, consider what happens when you meet strangers you would like to know better. Instead of projecting your image verbally (“Hi! I’m attractive, friendly, and easygoing”), you behave in ways that will present this identity. For example, you might dress fashionably, smile a lot, and perhaps try to strike a relaxed pose. There are several ways of managing impressions nonverbally. Sandra Metts and Erica Grohskopf (2003) reviewed professional trade journal articles on constructing good impressions and found examples of each of the following categories: • Manner refers to the way we act: how we deliberately stand and move, the way we control facial expressions, and the adjustments we make in our voice. (“Stand tall and walk proudly”; “When meeting others, make direct eye contact and use a firm but friendly handshake.”)

177

178

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

• Appearance involves the way we dress, the jewelry or other artifacts we wear, hair, makeup, scents, and so on. (“Dress how you wish to be remembered: with assurance, some spark of originality, and in a way that makes you feel comfortable and confident.”) • Setting involves the physical items we surround ourselves with: personal belongings, vehicles, and even the place we live. (“Mat and frame awards and certificates and display them in your office.”) Outside of the business world, French psychologist Nicolas Guéguen and his colleagues (Guéguen et al., 2013) ran studies to see if small differences in setting could influence attraction. A male research confederate was asked to approach local women at a shopping center and ask for their phone numbers. When he made the request while holding a guitar case, he was successful far more times (31%) than when carrying nothing (14%) or a sports bag (9%). In another study, Guéguen (2013) had female research confederates lie face down on the beach, reading a book. Some had a (temporary) tattoo of a butterfly on their lower backs; some did not. Those bearing tattoos were approached by men for conversation more often, and more quickly, than were those without tattoos. The researchers suggest that in both studies, seemingly minor changes played major roles in nonverbal impression management.

TYPES OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION So far, we’ve talked about the role nonverbal communication plays in our interpersonal relationships. Now it’s time to look at the many types of nonverbal communication.

BODY MOVEMENT A primary way we communicate nonverbally is through the physical movement of our bodies: our posture, gestures, eye contact, facial expressions, and so on. Social scientists use the term kinesics to describe the study of how people communicate through bodily movements (Afifi, 2017). We break them down by category here, although these various features usually work in combination with each other.

Face and Eyes The face and eyes are probably the most noticeable parts of the body. However, the nonverbal messages they send are not always the easiest to read. The face is a tremendously complicated channel of expression to interpret, for several reasons. First, it’s hard to describe the number and kind of expressions commonly produced by the face and eyes. For example, researchers have found that there are at least 8 distinguishable positions of the eyebrows and forehead, 8 more of the eyes and lids, and 10 for the lower face

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

179

(Ekman, 2003). When you multiply this complexity by the number of emotions we experience, you can see why it would be almost impossible to compile a dictionary of facial expressions and their corresponding emotions. The significance of the face in interpersonal communication can be seen in the many phrases that allude to it. We talk about “saving face,” needing some “face time,” maintaining a “poker face,” and “facing our fears.” That’s because, according to Knapp and Hall (2010), the face may well be “the primary source of communicative information next to human speech” (p. 293). A central component of facial expression is eye behavior. Oculesics is the study In a Different Voice: Speechless of how the eyes can communicate. Gazes and glances are usually signals of the looker’s Maya DiMeo (Minnie Driver) is a wife and mother who interest. However, the type of interest can is fiercely protective of her family. In particular, she’s vary. Gazing can be an indicator of liking an outspoken advocate for her son JJ (Micah Fowler), (Schotter et al., 2010). In other situations, who has cerebral palsy and is unable to speak. He eye contact indicates interest, but not atcommunicates primarily through a low-tech letter traction or approval, such as when a teacher board and a headlight pointer—and also through glares at a rowdy student or a police offinonverbal cues. cer “keeps an eye on” a suspect. Of course, JJ’s family and aides pay close attention to his eyes the meaning of eye contact is influenced by and face for information. Maya is quick to observe, “Oh, culture. For instance, East Asian cultures you don’t like that?” when JJ rolls his eyes, or “You think tend to see the avoidance of eye contact as that’s funny” when he sneaks a grin. When JJ wants to a sign of respect and prolonged eye contact communicate verbally, Maya and others read aloud the as unpleasant and even aggressive (Akechi letters and words he points to on his board. But even et al.,2013). then, he makes sure they read with the right inflection In North America, making eye contact and tone, lest he be misunderstood. is generally regarded favorably (Akechi The title Speechless is a nod to JJ’s lack of talking, but et al., 2013). Those who look others in the the show demonstrates there’s more to communication eye are perceived as intelligent (Murphy, than speaking. JJ clearly has a voice—and with the help 2007), and experts have found a strong of others, he makes it heard. correlation between eye contact and interpersonal closeness (Shellenbarger, 2013). Unfortunately, those same experts lament that mobile devices interfere with eye contact. Research also suggests that overuse of technology can dull interpersonal perceptiveness. Preteens who took a five-day break from their cell phones dramatically increased their ability to accurately read others’ nonverbal cues (Uhls et al., 2014). Chapters 9 and 10 will have more to say about technology and relationships, but for now it’s worth noting that eye contact distractions can take a toll on interpersonal communication.

Media Clip

180

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Posture and Gestures To appreciate the communicative value of body language, stop reading for a moment and notice how you’re sitting. What does your position say nonverbally about how you feel? Are there any other people near you now? What messages do you get from their present posture? By paying attention to the postures of those around you, as well as to your own, you’ll find another channel of nonverbal communication that reveals how people Whether or not we intend it, our posture conveys a message. feel about themselves and others. How might others interpret your characteristic postures? The English language indicates the deep links between posture and communication. English is full of expressions that tie emotional states to body postures: “I won’t take this lying down!” “Stand on your own two feet.” “Take a load off your back.” “Don’t be so uptight!” Phrases such as these show an awareness of posture, even if it’s often unconscious. The main reason we miss most posture messages is that they are usually subtle. It’s seldom that people who feel weighed down by a problem hunch over dramatically. In interpreting posture, then, the key is to look for small changes that might be shadows of the way people feel.

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Nonverbal Imitation: The Sincerest Form of Flattery The next time you’re at a social gathering, take a look at the nonverbal behaviors in each group of conversationalists. Are most of them standing the same way—maybe with hands on hips or arms crossed? Are their postures alike? What about their facial expressions? It’s likely their nonverbal displays are similar—and that’s a positive sign, according to researchers Ishabel Vicaria and Leah Dickens. The scholars conducted a meta-analysis of data about interpersonal coordination—the tendency of social partners to imitate each other’s nonverbal mannerisms. They crunched numbers from 50 different studies and found some consistent conclusions.

Synchronizing nonverbal behaviors creates a social bond. It happens with people we know and love, and also between strangers. Coordinating with another’s nonverbal cues reflects and creates a sense of affinity. It also reduces anxiety and enhances one’s mood. The researchers conclude that nonverbal coordination is the “social glue” that promotes cohesion and harmonious feelings between interactants. So watch for it the next time you’re at a family event, out with friends, or at a business meeting. If your nonverbal behaviors match what others are doing, it’s no accident. It may speak to how you feel about those people—and how they feel about you.

Vicaria, I. M., & Dickens, L. (2016). Meta-analyses of the intra- and interpersonal outcomes of interpersonal coordination. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40, 335–361.

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

181

Gestures are a fundamental element of communication—so fundamental, in fact, that people who have been blind from birth use them (Bruce et al., 2007). Gestures are sometimes intentional—for example, a cheery wave or thumbs-up. In other cases, however, our gestures are unconscious. Occasionally, an unconscious gesture will consist of an unambiguous emblem, such as a shrug that clearly means “I don’t know.” Gestures can produce a wide range of reactions in receivers. In many situations, the right kinds of gestures can increase persuasiveness (Maricchiolo et al., 2009). For example, increasing hand and arm movements, leaning forward, fidgeting less, and keeping limbs open all make a speaker more effective at influencing others. Even more interesting is the finding that persuasiveness increases when one person mirrors another’s movements (Van Swol, 2003). This is logical considering that nonverbal mirroring is a common way to express similarity and affiliation with others (Kouzakova et al., 2010). As with almost any nonverbal behavior, the context in which gestures occur makes all the difference in the results they produce. Animated movements that are well received in a cooperative social setting may seem like signals of aggression or attempts at domination in a more competitive setting. Fidgeting that might suggest deviousness in a bargaining session could be appropriate when you offer a nervous apology in a personal situation. In any case, trying to manufacture insincere, artificial gestures (or any other nonverbal behaviors) will probably backfire. A more useful goal is to recognize the behaviors you find yourself spontaneously delivering and to consider how they reflect the attitudes you already feel.

TOUCH Social scientists use the term haptics to distinguish the study of touching (Afifi, 2017). Research confirms the value of touch for infants (Feldman et al., 2010; Field, 2007). In particular, studies show the value of “kangaroo care” for premature babies (Feldman et al., 2014). This involves mothers holding their underdeveloped infants close to their skin for one hour a day over two weeks. Compared with babies kept exclusively in incubators, these infants had stronger physiological and cognitive development, slept better, and had lower stress levels. Moreover, the touch sessions increased the mothers’ bonds with the babies and reduced their anxiety, showing that touch is important for both givers and receivers. The effects on the children in this study were still evident 10 years later. What this finding suggests is that interpersonal touch meets a primal human need. Some of the most pronounced benefits of Touch during childhood can be a powerful force in shaping the way we feel about ourselves and others. What messages did touching occur in medicine and the health and you receive from adult caregivers as a child? How have they helping professions. For example, patients are affected your sense of self and relationships later in life?

182

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

more likely to take their medicines when physicians give a slight touch while prescribing (Guéguen & Vion, 2009). Touch between therapists and clients has the potential to encourage a variety of beneficial changes: more self-disclosure, client self-acceptance, and better client–therapist relationships (Driscoll et al., 1988). In addition, patients with dementia who were administered hand massages, along with intermittent gentle touches on the arm and shoulder, decreased their anxiety and dysfunctional behavior (Kim & Buschmann, 1999). An additional power of touch is its on-the-job utility. Studies show that in restaurants, a server’s fleeting touch of the hand or forearm of a patron can result in larger tips (Guéguen & Jacob, 2005). And a patron whom a server touches on the arm while suggesting a meal choice is more likely to choose that meal (Guéguen et al., 2007). Even athletes benefit from touch. One study of the National Basketball Association revealed that the touchiest teams had the most successful records, whereas the lowest-scoring teams touched each other the least (Kraus et al., 2010).

VOICE To introduce you to the role your voice plays in communication, take a moment to read aloud any paragraph on this page several times, varying these factors as you do so: • Rate: Read it rapidly—and then reread it verrrrryyy slowwwwly. • Tempo: Emphasize different words, or put in. a few. pauses. • Volume: Whisper the first sentence, then announce the others LOUDLY. • Pitch: Read it in a high voice, then a low one—then in a midrange monotone. • Tone: Say the words with attitude. Then sweetly. Then meanly. • Accent: Try your hand at reading it with a regional or international lilt. Chances are good that with each rendering, you changed how listeners would perceive you—and perhaps you even altered the meaning of the words. Social scientists use the term paralanguage to describe the way a message is spoken. In essence, paralanguage is not so much about what you say, but how you say it. The impact of paralinguistic cues is strong. For example, children are drawn more to playmates who, regardless of race, have similar speech styles than they are to students of the same race who speak differently (Kinzler et al., 2009). “Accent trumps race,” as the authors put it. In addition, lowering your vocal pitch can signal your intent to take charge of a situation, and people will perceive you as more powerful (Cheng et al., 2016). Toward that end, it’s important to pay attention to the paralinguistic messages you’re sending. When first-year medical students watched videos of themselves and rated their doctor–patient communication, some of the primary shortcomings they noticed had to do with their paralanguage—particularly tone, rate, volume, and disfluencies (Zick et al., 2007).

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

@work

Let Your Voice Be Heard

In today’s business world, it’s easy to forget the value of letting clients, coworkers, and employers hear your voice—literally. Sometimes a phone call is the best way to get a job done. Using your voice may also be a good way to get hired. In a series of experiments (Schroeder& Epley, 2015), hypothetical employers and professional recruiters watched, listened to, or read job candidates’ pitches about why they should be hired. Judges who could hear the candidate’s voice rated her or him as more competent, thoughtful, and intelligent. Here’s what the researchers concluded: Although text-based communication media,such as email, may provide quick and easy ways to connect with potential employers, our experiments suggest that voiceless communication comes with

an unexpected inferential cost. A person’s voice, it seems, carries the sound of intellect. (p. 889) Besides boosting credibility, spoken words can save valuable time on the job. Executive Anthony Tjan (2011) sees back-and-forth e-messages as an inefficient time suck. He believes many business transactions could be conducted better via a phone conversation. And sales guru Stuart Leung (2014) says that text-based sales pitches are no replacement for the warmth and interaction that can be communicated in a voice call. It’s nice to conduct business in person, but that’s not feasible in much of today’s workplace. When you can’t meet face to face, remember that email isn’t the only means of making contact. Effective on-the-job communication may be only a phone call away.

Sarcasm is one approach in which we use emphasis, tone of voice, and length of utterance to change a statement’s meaning to the opposite of its verbal message (Rockwell, 2007b). Experience this reversal yourself with the following three statements. First, say them literally; then say them sarcastically: “You look terrific!” “I really had a wonderful time on my blind date.” “There’s nothing I like better than calves’ brains on toast.” As with other nonverbal messages, people often ignore or misinterpret the vocal nuances of sarcasm. Members of certain groups—children, people with weak intellectual skills, poor listeners, people who have communication apprehension, and people with certain forms of brain damage—are more likely to misunderstand sarcastic messages than are others (Rockwell, 2007a; Shamay et al., 2002). In some cases, you’ll want to give clues that your words shouldn’t be taken literally. An easy way to do this in online communication is through emoticons or emoji (Thompson & Filik, 2016), or shorthand such as “j/k” or “haha.” And in face-toface conversations, sometimes you may need to clarify: “Sorry, I was being sarcastic—maybe I should have just said, ‘I don’t like it when you tease me in front of my friends.’” Even pauses are part of paralanguage. Consider two types that can lead to communication snags. The first is the unintentional pause—those

183

184

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

times when people stop to collect their thoughts before deciding how best to continue their verbal message. It’s no surprise that liars tend to have more of these pauses than truth-tellers, as they often make Medium in pitch Medium in rate up stories on the fly (Guerrero & Floyd, 2006). When people pause Loud in volume at length after being asked a delicate question (“Did you like the gift I bought you?”), it might mean they’re buying time to come up with a face-saving—and perhaps less-than-honest—response. A second Clear enunciation type of pause is the vocalized pause. These range from disfluencies Well-modulated Without regional accent such as “um,” “er,” and “uh” to filler words such as “like,” “okay,” and Cheerful “ya know.” Vocalized pauses reduce a person’s perceived credibility (Davis et al., 2006) and should thus be avoided—especially in job interviews (Latz, 2010) and other situations where you’re trying to Firm Low in pitch sound poised and professional. Somewhat slow with pauses Just what makes a voice attractive can vary. As Figure 6.1 shows (Valentine & Saint Damian, 1988), culture can make a difference. Surveys indicate that there are both similarities and differences between U.S. IDEAL SPEAKER’S VOICE what Mexicans and U.S. citizens view as the “ideal” voice. SecondFIGURE 6.1 A Comparison of the language learners have a hard time learning to speak without a noticeIdeal Speaker’s Voice Types in Mexico able accent, even after years or decades of living in a new culture. And and the United States even when accented speech is perfectly understandable, it can result in discrimination by prejudiced listeners (Felps et al., 2009). In Chapter 5, we described how shared language patterns create a sense of convergence among communicators. The same is true of paralanguage, as people tend to adopt the vocal patterns of their co-cultural peers (Ting-Toomey, 2017). For instance, younger Americans often use “uptalk” (statements ending with a rise in pitch) and “vocal fry” (words ending with a low guttural rumble). Celebrities such as Kim Kardashian and Zooey Deschanel popularized these vocalic styles. It’s therefore not surprising that women and girls use them more than men and boys do (Linneman, 2013; Wolk et al., 2012), although age of the speaker (i.e., millennial or younger) has more of an impact than gender. There is some debate whether vocal fry diminishes one’s credibility (Anderson et al., 2014) or enhances it (Yuasa, 2010). The primary point here is that communicators pick up vocal mannerisms—often unconsciously—to affiliate with their speech communities. Pause for a moment and take a self-inventory. What feedback have you received about your paralanguage? Do people ask you to speak up or quiet down? Are you a fast or slow talker? Does your pitch signal confidence? Is your speech filled with “um”s, “like”s, and “ya know”s? Do loved ones sometimes react to your tone of voice, or critique not what you say but how you say it? Aside from qualities that result from your particular vocal cords, most features of your paralanguage are changeable. With a bit of self-monitoring, you have the ability to shift the way you talk to assist your interpersonal communication. MEXICAN IDEAL SPEAKER’S VOICE

DISTANCE Proxemics is the study of how communication is affected by the use, organization, and perception of space and distance (Afifi, 2017). Each of us

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

185

carries around a sort of invisible bubble of personal space wherever we go. We think of the area inside this bubble as our own—almost as much a part of us as our own bodies. Our personal bubbles vary in size according to the culture in which we were raised, the person we’re with, and the situation. It’s precisely the varying size of our personal space—the distance we put between ourselves and others—that gives a nonverbal clue to our feelings (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2013). In a classic study (Crane et al., 1987) researchers tested over 100 married couples, asking partners to walk toward one another and stop when they reached a “comfortable conversational distance.” Then they gave each partner a battery of tests to measure their marital intimacy, desire for change, and potential for divorce. The researchers discovered that there was a strong relationship between distance and marital happiness. The average space between distressed couples was about 25 percent greater than that between satisfied partners. On average, the happy couples stood 11.4 inches apart, whereas the distance between unhappy spouses averaged 14.8 inches. Preferred spaces are largely a matter of cultural norms (Beaulieu, 2004; Høgh-Olesen, 2008). For example, most North Americans stand closer to each other when talking than do most Asians (Andersen & Wang, 2009). Interestingly, the influence of culture on proxemic behavior even extends to online communication. In avatar interactions, Asian dyads maintain larger distances than European dyads, consistent with what occurs in face-toface interactions (Hasler & Friedman, 2012). Looking at the distances that North American communicators use in everyday interaction, pioneering researcher Edward Hall (1969) found four, each of which reflects a different way we feel toward others at a given time. By “reading” which distance people select, we can get some insight into their relationship with each other.

Intimate Distance The first of Hall’s zones, intimate distance, begins with skin contact and ranges out to about 18 inches. We usually use this distance with people who are emotionally close to us, and then mostly in private situations—making love, caressing, comforting, protecting. When we allow others this near to us voluntarily, it’s usually a sign of trust: We’ve willingly lowered our defenses. On the other hand, when someone invades this most intimate area without our consent, we usually feel threatened (especially when they’re “in your face”).

Personal Distance The second spatial zone, personal distance, ranges from 18 inches at its closest point to 4 feet at its

We may become aware of the boundaries of personal space only when they are violated. Can you recall instances when others intruded on your personal space, or you on theirs? What were the effects?

186

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

farthest. Its closer phase is the distance at which most couples stand in public. If someone thought to be sexually attractive stands this near one partner at a party, the other partner is likely to become alert. This “moving in” often is taken to mean that something more than casual conversation is taking place. The far range of personal distance runs from about 2.5to 4feet. It’s the zone just beyond the other person’s reach. As Hall puts it, at this distance we can keep someone “at arm’s length.” His choice of words suggests the type of communication that goes on at this range: The contacts are still reasonably close, but they’re much less intimate than the ones that occur a foot or so closer.

Social Distance The third zone is social distance, which ranges from 4 to about 12 feet out. Within this zone, the distance between communicators can have a powerful effect on how we regard and respond to others. For example, students are more satisfied with teachers who reduce (at appropriate levels, of course) the distance between themselves and their classes. They also are more satisfied with the course itself and are more likely to follow the teacher’s instructions (Hackman & Walker, 1990). Likewise, medical patients are more satisfied with physicians who use close physical proximity to convey warmth and concern (Grant et al., 2000). However, people with high social anxiety are likely to keep social distance at the far reaches to reduce their discomfort with strangers (Perry et al., 2013).

Public Distance Public distance is Hall’s term for the farthest zone, running outward from 12 feet. The closer range of public distance is the one that most teachers use in the classroom. In the farther reaches of public space—25 feet and beyond—two-way communication is almost impossible. In some cases it’s necessary for speakers to use public distance to reach a large audience, but we can assume that anyone who chooses to use it when more closeness is possible is not interested in a dialogue. When our spatial bubble is invaded, we experience stress. We may respond with barrier behaviors, strategies designed to create a barrier (or fix a broken one) between ourselves and other people (Evans & Wener, 2007; Kanaga & Flynn, 1981). Invade someone’s personal space, and notice the reaction. At first the person is most likely simply to back away, probably without realizing what is happening. Next, your partner might attempt to put an object between you, such as a desk, a chair, or some books clutched to the chest, all in an effort to get some separation. Then the other person will probably decrease eye contact (the “elevator syndrome,” in which we can crowd in and even touch one another so long as we avoid eye contact). Furthermore, your reluctant partner might sneeze, cough, scratch, and exhibit any variety of behaviors to discourage your antisocial behavior. The label “antisocial” suggests you should think twice before running experiments like this. The goal here is to describe the lengths people will go to

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

to protect their personal space—and how most of their defense signals are nonverbal.

TERRITORIALITY Whereas personal space is the invisible bubble we carry around, territory is a stationary area we claim (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001). Robert Sommer (1969) watched students in a college library and found that there’s a definite pattern for people who want to study alone. Although the library was uncrowded, students almost always chose corner seats at one of the empty rectangular tables. After each table was occupied by one reader, new readers would choose a seat on the opposite side and at the far end, thus keeping the maximum distance between themselves and the other readers. One of Sommer’s associates tried violating these unspoken rules by sitting next to and across from other female readers when more distant seats were available. She found that the approached women reacted defensively, signaling their discomfort through shifts in posture, gesturing, or moving away. Consider how you would react if someone took “your” seat in one of your classes. Even though the chair isn’t your possession, you probably have some sense of ownership about it (Kaya & Burgess, 2007). How you respond to perceived violations depends on who enters and uses your territory (a friend is less threatening than a stranger) and why they do so (a “mistake” is less important than a “planned attack”). It also depends on what territory is entered or used (you may care more about a territory over which you have exclusive rights, such as your bedroom, than about a territory in a public area, such as your seat in class).

TIME Social scientists use the term chronemics to describe the study of how humans use and structure time. The use of time depends greatly on culture. Some cultures (e.g., North American, German, and Swiss) tend to be monochronic, emphasizing punctuality, schedules, and completing one task at a time (Flaskerud, 2013). Other cultures (e.g., South American, Mediterranean, and Arab) are more polychronic, with flexible schedules in which multiple tasks are pursued at the same time. One psychologist discovered the difference between North and South American attitudes when teaching at a university in Brazil (Levine, 1988). He found that some students arrived halfway through a 2-hour class and that most of them stayed put and kept asking questions when the class was scheduled to end. A half hour after the official end of the period, the professor finally closed off discussion because there was no indication that the students intended to leave. Even within the same geographic area, different groups establish their own rules about the use of time. Consider your own experience. In school, some instructors begin and end class punctually, whereas others are more casual. With some people, you feel comfortable talking for hours in person or on the phone; with others, time seems precious and not to be “wasted.”

187

188

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Time can be a marker not only of status and culture but also of relationships. Research shows that the amount of time spent with a relational partner sends important messages about valuing that person (Andersen et al., 2006). In one study analyzing 20 nonverbal behaviors, “spending time together” was the most powerful predictor of both relaDARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION tional satisfaction and perceived interpersonal understanding (Egland et al., 1997). And as The Inequality of “Lookism” we discuss in Chapter 10, spending “quality What’s the problem if attractive people get advantime” with a partner is one of love’s languages. tages in life? According to Rachel Gordon and her colleagues (2013), it’s that “lookism” is a version of prejudice similar to racism, sexism, and classism. When people get preferential treatment based on their physical appearance, it does a disservice to everyone involved. The researchers maintain that advantages for the attractive begin in childhood and pick up steam in adolescence. Young people who are rated as better looking get higher grades and are more likely to attain college degrees than their peers, setting the stage for better economic outcomes throughout adulthood. These outcomes include the following: • Women gain an 8 percent wage bonus for aboveaverage looks; they pay a 4 percent wage penalty for below-average appearance. • For men, the attractiveness wage bonus is only 4percent. However, the penalty for below- average looks is even higher than for women: a full 13percent. Deborah Rhode (2010) claims this bias for beauty is quite literally unjust, as less-than-attractive people get poorer treatment in the legal system. A starting point for change is raising awareness. It’s important to realize that no one—not teachers, not clergy, not parents—is above giving preferential treatment to others on the basis of their beauty. When possible, students and job candidates should be evaluated through blind review to avoid partiality. And pay attention to how you treat people in your interactions, asking yourself the question, “Is this person’s appearance affecting the way I communicate with him or her?” If you’re honest, you might be surprised at how often the answer to that question is “Yes.”

PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS The importance of beauty has been emphasized in the arts for centuries. More recently, social scientists measured the degree to which physical attractiveness affects interaction between people (Lorenzo et al., 2010). Men and women whom others view as attractive are rated as being more sensitive, kind, strong, sociable, and interesting than their less fortunate brothers and sisters (Knapp & Hall, 2010). More than 200 managers in a Newsweek survey admitted that attractive people get preferential treatment both in hiring decisions and on the job (Bennett, 2010). And professors perceived to be “hot” are judged as having more expertise; students are more motivated to learn from them and give them higher teaching evaluations (Liu et al., 2013). Occasionally beauty has negative effects. Interviewers may turn down highly attractive candidates if they’re perceived as threats (Agthe et al., 2011). While good looks generally get rewarded, glamorous beauty can be intimidating (Frevert & Walker, 2014). And one study suggests that physically attractive people have trouble maintaining relationships, perhaps because they have high expectations for how they’ll be treated by their partners (Ma-Kellams et al., 2017). On the whole, however, the interpersonal benefits of attractiveness far outweigh the downsides, as the Dark Side box on the left describes. Fortunately, attractiveness is something we can control without having to call the plastic surgeon. If you aren’t totally gorgeous or handsome, don’t despair: Evidence suggests that, as we get to know more about people and like

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

them, we start to regard them as better looking (Albada et al., 2002). Moreover, we view others as beautiful or ugly not just on the basis of their “original equipment” but also on how they use that equipment. Posture, gestures, facial expressions, and other behaviors can increase the attractiveness of an otherwise unremarkable person. Finally, the way we dress can make a significant difference in the way others perceive us, as you’ll now see.

CLOTHING Besides protecting us from the elements, clothing is a means of nonverbal communication. It’s a way for some to strategically hide “problem areas” and accentuate “assets” (Frith & Gleeson, 2008). Clothing conveys a variety of messages to others (Howlett et al., 2013), including the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Economic level Education level Trustworthiness Social position Level of sophistication Economic background Social background Educational background Level of success Moral character

Dressing more formally—whether in a business suit, lab coat, or uniform— tends to enhance perceptions of credibility and expertise. Patients are more trusting of physicians who wear professional medical attire (Landry et al., 2013), and students regard guest lecturers who dress up for their presentations as more credible (Dunbar & Segrin, 2012). However, formal clothing can also create interpersonal distance. One study (Sebastian & Bristow, 2008) found that students attribute more expertise to professors who dress up, but they also rank those professors lower in likeability than casually dressed professors. Judgments based on what a person wears, like other perceptions, need to be made carefully. For example, whereas many Americans believe a hijab—a “veil” or “headscarf”—functions to oppress women, veiled women see their hijab as helping them define their Muslim identity, resist sexual objectification, and be afforded more respect (Bhowon, 2016). As the cartoon on this page demonstrates, what might seem offensive to us could look extremely different to someone from another culture.

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT So far this chapter has described how the nonverbal behavior of people influences relationships. Our last look at nonverbal communication will focus on how things both shape and reflect interpersonal

189

190

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

communication. As Barbara Brown and her colleagues put it, “relationships are inseparable from their settings” (2006, p. 673). Physical environment can shape the kind of interaction that takes place in it. For example, a study of 10 urban neighborhoods examined the sidewalks, presence of front porches, traffic-calming devices, bars on windows, and the presence of litter or graffiti. Neighborliness was significantly higher in places with positive physical environments. In grittier locales, people were less likely to have positive interactions with those who lived near them (Wilkerson et al., 2012). Physical items can also shape the quality of relationships. For example, exposure to business-related objects, such as a briefcase, may trigger competition; and the presence of guns in a setting may make people more aggressive (Arriaga et al., 2008). Furnishings and decorations also affect the way people feel and interact. Students who were interviewed in a room with dim lighting were more relaxed, had a more favorable impression of the interviewer, and were more self-disclosing than those exposed to bright lighting (Miwa & Hanyu, 2006). Clients who received counseling in a comfortably furnished office with upholstered chairs, curtains, a throw rug, and plants felt more welcome and expected better results than those who were treated in a sparsely furnished office with bright lighting (Nasar & Devlin, 2011). Along with shaping communication, physical environments can reflect the relationships of the people who create them. Consider the shared space of a couple. Do they display photographs of themselves together? Do souvenirs remind them of special times? Partners who create environments that chronicle and celebrate their relationships report feeling closer to one another, having better-functioning relationships, and having higher levels of commitment (Arriaga et al., 2008). Environmental influences can even shape perceptions and communication in virtual space. For example, people who meet online in a formal virtual setting (such as a library) communicate more formally, whereas those who meet in a casual virtual café aren’t as inhibited (Peña & Blackburn, 2013). You might want to keep these concepts in mind the next time you redesign your living space. Your physical environment—real or virtual—can affect your interpersonal communication.

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING Objective 6.1 Define nonverbal communication.

Nonverbal communication consists of messages expressed by nonlinguistic means. Often what we do conveys more meaning than what we say, and

nonverbal communication shapes perceptions. By tuning into facial expressions, postures, gestures, vocal tones, and other behaviors, you can make assumptions about the way communicators feel about one another and get some sense about the nature of their relationship.

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

Q: In a public place, unobtrusively record field notes describing the nonverbal messages you observe. For each observation, record at least two assumptions about the significance of the behavior in question.

Objective 6.2 Describe the distinguishing

characteristics of nonverbal communication. Nonverbal communication is pervasive; in fact, nonverbal messages are always available as a source of information about others. Most nonverbal behavior suggests messages about relational attitudes and feelings, in contrast to verbal statements, which are better suited to expressing ideas. Messages that are communicated nonverbally are usually more ambiguous than verbal communication. Contrary to what some might think, nonverbal cues also play a role in mediated communication. Nonverbal communication is also affected by culture and gender. Q: Keep a one-day log of significant nonverbal communication (both face-to-face and mediated) in one of your important relationships. For each entry, note (a) whether the behavior was deliberate or unintentional; (b) the relational messages that seem to have been exchanged; (c) the degree of ambiguity about the meaning of the behavior; and (d) gender and cultural factors that may have shaped the nonverbal behavior.

Objective 6.3 Identify and offer examples of the various functions that nonverbal communication can serve.

Nonverbal communication serves many functions. It can help create and maintain relationships. It also serves to regulate interaction, to influence others, and to influence yourself. In addition, nonverbal communication can be used to conceal or reveal deception. Finally, we use nonverbal cues to manage impressions with others. Q: Using the log you created for Objective 6.2, note the functions of the nonverbal behavior in each entry.

Objective 6.4 Describe how meaning is

communicated through particular nonverbal cues. Nonverbal messages can be communicated in a variety of ways: through body movement (including the face and eyes, gestures, and posture), touch, voice, distance, territory, time, physical appearance, clothing, and environment. Culture plays a significant role in determining the rules and meanings for each of these factors. Q: Describe one significant incident in which you communicated nonverbally through each of the channels described in this chapter.

KEY TERMS • Chronemics (187) • Disfluencies (184) • Emblems (171) • Haptics (181) • Intimate distance (185) • Kinesics (178) • Monochronic (187)

191

• Nonverbal communication (166) • Oculesics (179) • Paralanguage (182) • Personal distance (185) • Personal space (185) • Polychronic (187)

• Proxemics (184) • Public distance (186) • Regulators (173) • Social distance (186) • Territory (187)

192

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

ACTIVITIES 1. Demonstrate for yourself that it is impossible to avoid communicating nonverbally by trying not to communicate with a friend or family member. (You be the judge of whether to tell the other person about this experiment beforehand.) See how long it takes for your partner to inquire about what is going on and to report on what he or she thinks you might be thinking and feeling. 2. Interview someone from a culture different from your own, and learn at least three ways in which nonverbal codes differ from the environment where you were raised. Together, develop a list of ways you could violate unstated but important rules about nonverbal behavior in your partner’s culture in three of the following areas: Eye contact

Voice

Posture Touch Gesture Time Facial expression

Clothing

Distance

Environmental design

Territory Territory

Describe how failure to recognize different cultural codes could lead to misunderstandings, frustrations, and dissatisfaction. Discuss how awareness of cultural rules can be developed in an increasingly multicultural world. 3. Watch a television program or film, and identify examples of the following nonverbal functions: Creating and maintaining relationships Regulating interaction Influencing others or self Concealing or deceiving Managing impressions If time allows, show these examples to your classmates.

4. Learn more about the nonverbal messages you send by interviewing someone who knows you well: a friend, family member, or coworker. Ask your interview participant to describe how he or she knows when you are feeling each of the following emotions, even though you may not announce your feelings verbally:

Anger or irritation Boredom or indifference Happiness Sadness Worry or anxiety

Which of these nonverbal behaviors do you display intentionally, and which are not conscious? Which functions do your nonverbal behaviors perform in the situations your partner described: creating/maintaining relationships, regulating interaction, influencing others, concealing/deceiving, and/or managing impressions? 5. Explore your territoriality by listing the spaces you feel you “own,” such as your parking space, parts of the place you live, and seats in a particular classroom. Describe how you feel when your territory is invaded, and identify things you do to “mark” it. Share your findings with a group of classmates and see if they have similar or different territoriality habits. 6. This activity requires you to observe how people use space in a particular setting and to note reactions to violations of spatial expectations. Select a supermarket, department store, college bookstore, or some other common setting in which people shop for things and then pay for them on a checkout line. Observe the interaction distances that seem usual between salesclerks and customers, between customers as they shop, and between customers in the checkout line. a. What are the average distances between the people you observed? b. How do people respond when one person comes too close to another or when one person touches another? How do people react to these violations of their space? How could they avoid violating each other’s personal space? c. Try to observe people from a culture other than your own in this store. Describe their use of spatial distance. If this is not possible in the store, think back to a foreign film or a film that contains interaction between North Americans and people of another culture, as well as people from that same culture.

CH A PT ER 6 N onverbal Communication

SCORING FOR ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION (PAGE 174)

Step 1. Reverse-score items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 12 (i.e., 5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, and 1 = 5). Step 2. After reverse-scoring the 6 items in step 1, sum the scores for all 12 items. This is your Nonverbal Immediacy Scale score. Scores can range from 12 to 60. Men and women differed in their self-evaluations using this measure, with women perceiving themselves as engaging in more nonverbal immediacy behaviors than men. College-age women had an average score of 47, with most scores between 42 and 52. College-age men had an average score of 43, with most scores between 38 and 49.

193

7 Listening: Receiving and Responding LEARNING OBJECTIVES

CHAPTER OUTLINE

7.1

The Nature of Listening 196

7.2 7.3 7.4

Describe the nature of listening and the listening styles that interpersonal communicators use. Explain the challenges that can impede effective listening. Identify the five components of the interpersonal listening process. Effectively use a variety of reflective and directive listening responses.

FEATURES At Work: Listening on the Job 197 Assessing Your Communication: Your Listening Styles 200 Media Clip: Multifaceted Listening: The Profit 201 Dark Side of Communication: The Myth of Multitasking 205 Focus on Research: Responding Helps Speakers Tell Their Stories 207 Watch and Discuss: “Brené Brown on Empathy” 214 Media Clip: Responding Directively: Scandal 219 Focus on Research: Exchanging Advice Online 220

• The Importance of Listening 196 • Listening Defined 197 • Listening Styles 199

The Challenge of Listening 202 • Recognizing Barriers to Listening 202 • Avoiding Poor Listening Habits 203

Components of Listening 204 • Hearing 204 • Attending 204 • Understanding 205 • Remembering 206 • Responding 206

Types of Listening Responses 207 • Silent Listening 208 • Questioning 209 • Paraphrasing 211 • Empathizing 214 • Supporting 216 • Analyzing 218 • Evaluating 218 • Advising 219 • Which Response Type to Use? 221 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 222 KEY TERMS 223 ACTIVITIES 224

195

196

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

AKE A MOMENT to identify the worst listener you know. Maybe it’s someone who interrupts or whose attention seems to wander as you talk. Perhaps this person forgets important things you have said, steers the conversation back to himself or herself, or gives responses that reflect a lack of understanding. Recall how you feel when you’re conversing with this poor listener. Irritated? Frustrated? Discouraged? Now think about how others view you as a listener. Which of these behaviors, so annoying in your conversational partners, do you engage in yourself? In this chapter, you will learn just how important listening is in interpersonal communication. You will read about the many factors that make good listening difficult and find reasons for tackling those challenges. You will learn what really happens when listening takes place. Finally, you will read about a variety of listening responses that you can use to increase your own understanding, improve your relationships, and help others.

THE NATURE OF LISTENING Plenty of people offer advice on how to listen better, such as “close your mouth and open your ears.” Although such prescriptions are a good start, they are overly simplistic and don’t capture the complex nature of listening. We begin our exploration of this subject by describing the importance of listening in interpersonal communication.

THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

11.4% Writing

16.1% Speaking

17.1% Reading

27.9% Media Listening

27.5% Interpersonal Listening

FIGURE 7.1 Time Devoted to Communication Activities

How important is listening? In terms of frequency, it ranks first among communication activities. Surveys (Barker et al., 1981; Emanuel et al., 2008) show that as much as 55 percent of college students’ communication time is spent listening (see Figure 7.1). When working adults were asked to name the most common communication behavior they observed in their place of business, “listening” topped the list (Keyton et al., 2013). And as the At Work box on page 197 attests, listening skills are highly valued in the workplace. The business world is not the only setting in which listening is vital. When a group of adults was asked torank various communication skills according to their importance, listening topped the family/social list as well as the career list (Brownell & Wolvin, 2010). In committed relationships, listening to personal information in everyday conversations is considered an important ingredient of satisfaction (Prager & Buhrmester, 1998). With this in mind, we turn our attention to defining this important skill.

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

@work

197

Listening on the Job

If you were asked to imagine the most talented communicators in the business world, it’s likely you would picture executives who are articulate, charismatic public figures. However, research shows that in the workplace, the ability to listen effectively is more important than public presentation skills. Numerous studies (summarized in Flynn et al., 2008) find listening to be the most important communication skill for entry-level workers, subordinates, supervisors, and managers on several dimensions: job and career success, productivity, upward mobility, communication training, and organizational effectiveness. Moreover, people who work in organizations that value listening to their employees have a stronger sense of attachment and loyalty to their companies (Reed et al., 2016). Unfortunately, there’s no connection between how well most communicators think they listen

LISTENING DEFINED So far we have used the term listening as if it needs no explanation. Actually, there’s more to this concept than you might suspect. We define listening—at least the interpersonal type—as the process of receiving and responding to others’ messages. Traditional approaches to listening focus on the reception of spoken messages. However, we’ve broadened the definition to include messages of all sorts because much of contemporary listening takes place through mediated channels, some of which involve the written word. Consider times you’ve said something like, “I was talking with a friend and she said . . . ,” when the conversation you recount actually took place via text messaging. You’ll read in Chapter 9 how social support can be offered in face-to-face communication but also through blogs, posts, tweets, and other social media mechanisms. We continue to focus on spoken messages in this chapter (beginning with our discussion of “hearing”), but recognize that “listening” in contemporary society involves more than meets the ear.

and how competent they really are in their ability to understand others. In a classic study (Brownell, 1990), a group of managers were asked to rate their listening skills. Astonishingly, not one of the managers described himself or herself as a “poor” or “very poor” listener, and 94 percent rated themselves as “good” or “very good.” The favorable self-ratings contrasted sharply with the perceptions of the managers’ subordinates, many of whom said their bosses’ listening skills were weak. Leadership coach Melissa Daimler (2016) believes the best managers are the best listeners. She’s a fan of the question “What do you think?” as a tool for drawing out valuable information. “It can be a powerful technique, especially if there is no single right answer,” she notes. But it works best “in an organization that values listening.”

198

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Hearing Versus Listening Listening and hearing aren’t identical. Hearing is the process in which sound waves strike the eardrum and cause vibrations that are transmitted to the brain. Listening occurs when the brain reconstructs these electrochemical impulses into a representation of the original sound and then gives them meaning (Robinshaw, 2007). Barring illness, injury, or cotton plugs, you can’t stop hearing. Your ears will pick up sound waves and transmit them to your brain whether you want them to or not. Listening, however, isn’t automatic. Many times we hear but do not listen. Sometimes we automatically and unconsciously block out irritating sounds, such as a neighbor’s lawn mower or the roar of nearby traffic. We also stop listening when we find a subject unimportant or uninteresting. Boring stories, television commercials, and nagging complaints are common examples of messages we may tune out.

Mindless Listening

EAR

When we move beyond hearing and start to listen, researchers note that we process information in two very different ways (Burleson, 2011; Todorov et al., 2002). Ellen Langer (1990) uses the terms mindless and mindful to describe these different ways of listening. Mindless listening occurs when we react to others’ messages automatically and routinely, without much mental investment. Words such as “superficial” and “cursory” describe mindless listening better than terms such as “ponder” and “contemplate.” Although the term mindless may sound negative, this sort of low-level information processing is a potentially valuable type of communication. It frees us to focus our minds on messages that require our careful attention (Burgoon et al., 2000). Given the number of messages to which we’re exposed, it’s impractical to listen carefully and thoughtfully 100 percent of the time. It’s unrealistic to devote your full attention to long-winded stories, idle chatter, or remarks you’ve heard many times before. The only realistic way to manage the onslaught of messages is to be “lazy” toward many of them (Griffin, 2006). In situations like these, we forgo careful analysis and fall back on the schemas—and sometimes the stereotypes—described in Chapter 4 to make sense of a message. If you stop right now and recall the messages you have heard today, it’s likely that you processed most of them mindlessly. EYES

Mindful Listening UNDIVIDED ATTENTION

HEART

FIGURE 7.2 The Chinese characters that make up the verb “to listen.”

By contrast, mindful listening involves giving careful and thoughtful attention and responses to the messages we receive. You tend to listen mindfully when a message is important to you or to someone you care about. Think of how you would tune in carefully if a close friend told you about the loss of a loved one. In situations like this, you want to give the message-sender your complete and undivided attention (see Figure 7.2). Sometimes we respond mindlessly to information that deserves—and even demands—our mindful

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

attention. Ellen Langer’s (1990) determination to study mindfulness began when her grandmother complained about headaches coming from a “snake crawling around” beneath her skull. Doctors quickly diagnosed the problem as senility, interpreting the snake description as nonsense. In fact, the grandmother had a brain tumor that eventually killed her. The event made a deep impression on Langer: For years afterward I kept thinking about the doctors’ reactions to my grandmother’s complaints, and about our reactions to the doctors. They went through the motions of diagnosis, but were not open to what they were hearing. Mindsets about senility interfered. We did not question the doctors; mindsets about experts interfered. (p. 3)

Most of our daily decisions about whether to listen mindfully don’t have life-and-death consequences, of course. Yet we often need to listen consciously and carefully to what others are telling us. That kind of mindful listening is the focus of this chapter.

LISTENING STYLES Not everyone listens the same way or with the same goals all the time. Communication researchers have identified four broad listening styles— task oriented, relational, analytical, and critical—each of which has both strengths and weaknesses (Bodie et al., 2013). Many people use more than one listening style, and the style may vary depending on the situation at hand (Gearhart et al., 2014).

Task-Oriented Listening Task-oriented listening is most concerned with efficiency and accomplishing the job at hand. When deadlines and other pressures demand immediate action, task orientation can be beneficial. It’s most appropriate when the primary focus is taking care of business; such listeners encourage others to be organized and concise. Despite its advantages, a task orientation may alienate others when it seems to ignore their feelings. People with a different temperament, or those who are from cultures where it is impolite to be direct, may not appreciate a strictly task-oriented approach. In addition, a focus on getting things done quickly may come at the expense of thoughtful deliberation and consideration. Finally, task-oriented listeners may minimize the emotional issues and concerns that are so important to many business and personal transactions.

Relational Listening Relational listening is most concerned with building emotional closeness with others. People who primarily use this style are typically extroverted, attentive, and friendly (Villaume & Bodie, 2007). Relational listeners aim to understand how others feel; they are thus aware of and highly responsive to others’ emotions. They strive to be nonjudgmental and are more interested in understanding and supporting people than in evaluating or controlling them. Not surprisingly, relational listeners are more likely than those with other styles to draw out responses from the message-sender (Keaton et al., 2015).

199

200

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

A S S E S S I N G YO U R CO M M U N I C AT I O N

Your Listening Styles Record your first impression to each of the following statements by indicating the degree to which you agree or disagree. Use a scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree.”

Relational Listening 1. When listening to others, it is important to understand the feelings of the speaker. 2. I listen to understand the emotions and mood of the speaker. 3. I listen primarily to build and maintain relationships with others. 4. I enjoy listening to others because it allows me to connect with them. Analytical Listening 5. I tend to withhold judgment about another’s ideas until I have heard everything they have to say. 6. When listening to others, I consider all sides of the issue before responding.

7. I fully listen to what a person has to say before forming any opinions.

8. To be fair to others, I fully listen to what they have to say before making judgments. Task Listening 9. I get frustrated when people get off topic during a conversation. 10. I prefer speakers who quickly get to the point. 11. I find it difficult to listen to people who take too long to get their ideas across. 12. When listening to others, I appreciate speakers who give brief, to-the-point presentations. Critical Listening 13. I often catch errors in other speakers’ logic. 14. I tend to naturally notice errors in what other speakers say. 15. I have a talent for catching inconsistencies in what a speaker says. 16. When listening to others, I notice contradictions in what they say. This measure presents 16 of the 24 items of the original instrument developed by Graham Bodie and his colleagues: Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D. L., & Gearhart, C. C. (2013). The Listening Styles Profile–Revised (LSP–R): A scale revision and evidence for validity. Communication Quarterly, 61, 72–90.

For scoring information, see page 225 at the end of the chapter.

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

A relational orientation can have drawbacks, however. In an effort to be congenial and supportive, relational listeners may lose their detachment and ability to objectively assess information (Gearhart & Bodie, 2011). Less relationally oriented communicators may view them as overly expressive and even intrusive.

201

Media Clip

Analytical Listening Analytical listening emphasizes attending to the full message before coming to judgment. People who default to this style want to hear details and analyze an issue from a variety of perspectives. Analytical listeners can be a big help when the goal is to investigate difficult questions, taking into account a wide range of perspectives. They are especially valuable in thinking systematically about complex issues. This thorough approach can be time consuming and impractical at times, however, such as when a deadline is fast approaching.

Critical Listening People whose default mode is critical listening have a strong desire to evaluate messages. They are concerned not just with understanding messages but with assessing their quality, focusing on accuracy and consistency. This style can be especially helpful when the goal is to investigate a problem. However, critical listeners can also frustrate others by appearing to find fault in even minor details.

Multifaceted Listening: The Profit Marcus Lemonis is a billionaire who adds to his wealth by investing in ailing companies. The TV series The Profit chronicles his approach. (The show’s title is a play on words, as Lemonis needs to be a prophet to make a profit.) When he first analyzes a business, Lemonis relies on analytical, critical, and task-oriented listening. He asks all stakeholders to explain how they went from making to losing money. Based on what he learns, Lemonis devises a strategy for turning around the business. Along with focusing on the nuts and bolts of a company, Lemonis recognizes that business problems create interpersonal problems, and vice versa. To understand how interpersonal dynamics affect the bottom line, he engages in heavy doses of relational listening. In the end, Lemonis helps manage hurt feelings and breaches of trust as much as he assists in balancing ledgers. The show is a reminder that good communicators use a variety of listening styles and responses—and that many business problems require interpersonal solutions.

Whichever styles you use, it’s important to recognize that you can control the way you listen. When your relationship with the speaker needs attention, adopt a relational approach. If investigation is called for, put on your analytical persona. And when there is a need for evaluation, become a critical listener. You can also become more effective by assessing and adapting to the listening preferences and styles of your conversational partners.

202

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

THE CHALLENGE OF LISTENING Even with the best intentions, listening carefully is a challenge. When two or more people are listening to a speaker, we tend to assume that each understands the same message. But recall our discussion of perception in Chapter 4; many factors cause each of us to perceive an event differently. Physiological factors, social roles, cultural background, personal interests, and needs all shape and distort the raw data we hear into very different messages. It’s no wonder that dyads typically achieve only 25 to 50 percent accuracy in interpreting or representing each other’s behavior (Spitzberg, 1994). Our unique views of the world both color and limit the way we listen (Robins et al., 2004). Although we all listen differently, we can try to avoid some common pitfalls. Here we take a look at some of the obstacles and bad habits we need to overcome in order to listen carefully.

RECOGNIZING BARRIERS TO LISTENING Listening is more difficult than many realize. Common barriers to listening include information overload, personal concerns, rapid thought, and noise. Being aware of these potential barriers can help you create environments that are more conducive to listening.

Information Overload The sheer amount of information most of us encounter every day makes it impossible to listen carefully to everything we hear. We’re bombarded with messages not only in face-to-face interaction, but also from the internet, the media, cell phones, and various other sources (Arsenault, 2007). Given this barrage of information, it’s virtually impossible for us to keep our attention totally focused for long. As a result, we often choose— understandably and sometimes wisely—to listen mindlessly rather than mindfully.

Personal Concerns A second reason we don’t always listen carefully is that we’re often wrapped up in personal concerns of more immediate importance to us than the messages others are sending (Golen, 1990; Nichols, 2009). It’s hard to pay attention to someone else when you’re anticipating an upcoming test or thinking about the wonderful time you had last night. When we still feel that we have to pay attention to others while our focus is elsewhere, listening becomes mindless at best and often a polite charade. Because listening well is difficult, the gift of attention is both rare and meaningful. What factors make it difficult for you to listen carefully and skillfully? How can you overcome these barriers when it’s important to be a good listener?

Rapid Thought Careful listening is also difficult because our minds are so active. Although we’re capable of

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

understanding speech at rates up to 600 words per minute (Versfeld & Dreschler, 2002), the average person speaks much more slowly—between 100 and 140 words per minute. Therefore, we have a lot of “spare time” to spend with our minds while someone is talking. The temptation is to use this time in ways that don’t relate to the speaker’s ideas, such as thinking about personal interests, daydreaming, planning a rebuttal, and so on. The trick is to use this spare time to understand the speaker’s ideas better rather than let your attention wander.

Noise Finally, our physical and mental worlds often present distractions that make it hard for us to pay attention. The sounds of other conversations, traffic, and music, as well as the kinds of psychological noise discussed in Chapter 1, all interfere with our ability to listen well. In addition, fatigue or other forms of discomfort can distract us from paying attention to a speaker’s remarks. For instance, consider how you listen less effectively when you are seated in a crowded, hot, stuffy room full of moving people and other noises. In such circumstances, even the best intentions aren’t enough to ensure understanding.

AVOIDING POOR LISTENING HABITS Most people possess one or more habits that keep them from understanding others’ messages. As you read the following list of such habits, see which ones describe you. Avoiding these poor listening behaviors begins with awareness of when you engage in them.

by Rob DenBleyker, © Explosm 2017

203

204

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

• Pseudolistening is pretending to pay attention. Pseudolisteners look others in the eye, and they may even nod and smile, but their minds are in another world. • Stage hogging is expressing your own ideas without inviting others to share theirs. Stage hogs allow others to speak from time to time, but only so they can catch their breath; they do not seem to care what others may contribute to the conversation. • Selective listening is responding only to the parts of a speaker’s remarks that interest you, ignoring or rejecting everything else. • Filling in gaps is manufacturing information that wasn’t part of an original story or message. When people who fill in gaps retell what they listened to, they present a distorted (not merely incomplete) version of the original. • Insulated listening is almost the opposite of selective listening. Instead of focusing only on topics of interest, these listeners tune out any topics they’d rather not deal with. • Defensive listening is taking innocent comments as personal attacks. Defensive listeners project their own insecurities onto others. • Ambushing is listening carefully only to collect information for use in attacking the speaker. This kind of strategy can ruin a supportive communication climate.

COMPONENTS OF LISTENING By now, you can begin to see that there is more to listening than sitting quietly while another person speaks. In truth, listening—especially mindful listening—consists of five separate elements: hearing, attending, understanding, remembering, and responding.

HEARING As we have discussed, hearing is the physiological aspect of listening. It is obviously vital to listening because it’s the starting point of the process. It can be diminished by physiological disorders, background noise, or auditory fatigue, which is a temporary loss of hearing caused by continuous exposure to the same tone or loudness. People who attend a loud concert or fireworks show may experience auditory fatigue and, if they are exposed often enough, permanent hearing loss (“5.2 Million Young Americans,” 2001). And what used to be perceived as a problem just for the elderly is now a serious concern for adolescents, due in large part to the use of earphones for portable devices (Shargorodsky et al., 2010). It’s wise to protect your hearing—for your own sake as well as for the sake of your relationship partners.

ATTENDING Whereas hearing is a physiological process, attending is a psychological one, and it is part of the process of selection that we described in Chapter 4. As discussed earlier in this chapter, we are awash in messages from both social and mass media. This deluge of communication has made the challenge of attending tougher than at any time in human history

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

(Hansen, 2007; Ralph et al., 2013). And despite what many believe, we can’t attend to multiple sources at the same time—at least not well (see the Dark Side box in this section). We would go crazy if we attended to every message, so we filter out some while focusing on others. Not surprisingly, we attend most carefully to messages when there’s a payoff for doing so (Burleson, 2007). If you’re planning to see a movie, you’ll listen to a friend’s description of it more closely than you otherwise would. And when you want to get to know others better, you’ll pay careful attention to almost anything they say in hopes of advancing the relationship. As you read in Chapter 6, skillful communicators attend to both speakers’ words and their nonverbal cues. Imagine you asked a friend, “How’s it going?” and she answered, “Fine.” Her nonverbal behaviors could either reinforce the statement (big smile, enthusiastic vocal tone) or contract it (downcast eyes, slumped posture, dejected vocal tone). Some people are simply inattentive to nonverbal cues, but others suffer from a physiological syndrome called nonverbal learning disorder (Casey, 2012). Due to a processing deficit in the right hemisphere of the brain, people with this disorder have trouble making sense of many nonverbal cues. Whether due to insensitivity or physiology, failing to attend to nonverbal cues is a listening deficit.

UNDERSTANDING Paying attention—even close attention—to a message doesn’t guarantee that you’ll understand what’s being said. Understanding is attaching meaning to a message. This stage of the listening process is composed of several elements. First, of course, you must be aware of the syntactic and grammatical rules of the language. You must also be familiar with the speaker’s vocabulary and jargon (you can probably remember times when you felt lost in the lingo and acronyms at a new job). Another important factor is

205

DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION

The Myth of Multitasking “Don’t worry—I’m still listening” (while answering a text message) “I’m paying attention to you” (while Googling) “It’s okay—I can multitask” (while perusing social media) You’ve probably heard—or spoken—words like these while talking with friends and family. Most people are convinced they can attend to several message sources at once. In fact, they believe multitasking is an efficient and effective way to communicate. Unfortunately, research doesn’t back their claim. Our brains can only process so much information at one time, and mobile devices provide a distraction that impairs cognitive focus (Carrier et al., 2015). Studies show that media multitasking has a negative effect on learning (Kuznekoff et al., 2015), studying (David et al., 2015), and remembering (Uncapher et al., 2016). One review of the literature put it this way: “Research provides clear evidence that mobile media use is distracting, with consequences for safety, efficiency, and learning” (Levine et al., 2012, p. 15). Safety concerns are the darkest side of multitasking, as texting while driving kills thousands each year (O’Connor et al., 2013). (For info on persuading friends to stop texting while behind the wheel, see Wang, 2016.) The relationship between mobile devices and distraction is so strong that the mere presence of a cell phone can disrupt your listening, according to one study (Thornton et al., 2014). The sight of a mobile device reminds you of the “broader social community” you’re missing out on, says Bill Thornton, the study’s lead author. “With the presence of the phone, you’re wondering what those people are doing.” He recommends putting your phone out of sight when not using it: “Unless you’re an advisor to the president and we have a national emergency, you can wait an hour to get a text” (Worland, 2014). Face-to-face communication is becoming increasingly rare, so it’s wise to treat it as a valuable commodity. When you’re with another person, lend them more than just your ear—give them your full and undivided attention.

206

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

what you know about the message’s source. Such background will help you decide, for example, whether a friend’s insulting remark is a joke or a serious attack. The context of a message also helps you understand what’s being said. A yawning response to your comments would probably have a different meaning at midnight than at noon. The ideal in interpersonal listening is both to understand and to be understood. Listening fidelity is the degree of congruence between what a listener understands and what the message sender was attempting to communicate (Powers &Witt, 2008). Fidelity doesn’t mean agreement. You might listen carefully to a point your friend is making, understand her position quite clearly, and still disagree completely. But the act of understanding sends a positive relational message, even if the communicators don’t see eye to eye on the content.

REMEMBERING The ability to recall information once we’ve understood it, or r emembering, is a function of several factors. These include the number of times the information is heard or repeated, the amount of information received at once, and whether presenting the information can be rehearsed (Ranpura, 2013). Early research on listening revealed that people remember only about half of what they hear immediately after hearing it, even when they listen mindfully (Barker, 1971). Within 2 months, we forget 50 percent of the originally remembered portion, bringing what we remember down to about 25 percent of the original message. However, this loss doesn’t take 2 months; people start forgetting immediately (within 8 hours, the 50% remembered drops to about 35%). Of course, these amounts vary from person to person and depend on the importance of the information being recalled (Cowan & AuBuchon, 2008). Forgetting important messages can cause relational problems. People often feel slighted when others—especially loved ones—don’t remember things they’ve heard. “I told you this repeatedly and you still forgot?” is a familiar refrain in many interpersonal conflicts.

RESPONDING All the steps we have discussed so far—hearing, attending, understanding, and remembering—are internal activities. A final part of the listening process involves responding to a message—giving observable feedback (Reis & Clark, 2013). In initial interactions, people generally appreciate listeners who respond by asking questions or paraphrasing (Weger et al., 2014). Nonverbal responsiveness is important, too. One study found that when physicians offered plenty of supportive nonverbal cues—eye contact, nodding, smiling, gesturing, leaning forward—their patients responded with clearer descriptions of symptoms, leading to more accurate diagnoses (Ruben & Hall, 2016). In other words, responsive listening helps both senders and receivers communicate more effectively. (The Focus on Research sidebar on p. 207 offers further evidence for this point.)

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

207

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Responding Helps Speakers Tell Their Stories It can be frustrating to tell someone a personal problem, only to have them give you little, if any, response. When you don’t get a reaction, you’re likely to say (or at least think), “Did you hear what I just told you?” A team led by Graham Bodie found support for the notion that we appreciate responsive listeners in times of trouble. The researchers asked undergraduates to disclose a recent upsetting problem. Some of the students described their woes to trained listeners, while others opened up to untrained respondents. The trained listeners were coached to use the response skills described in this chapter: questioning, paraphrasing,

and empathizing (referred to collectively as “active listening”). Not surprisingly, the problem disclosers said the trained listeners seemed more emotionally aware than the untrained ones. They also said their emotional states improved from talking with active, responsive listeners. The researchers noted that when the problem disclosers didn’t get active listening responses from their partners, they had trouble telling their stories. The conversations didn’t flow smoothly, and the disclosers were more likely to repeat themselves— perhaps because they thought they weren’t getting through. These findings offer further evidence that effective listening is an active, not a passive process.

Bodie, G. D., Vickery, A. J., Cannava, K., & Jones, S. M. (2015). The role of “active listening” in informal helping conversations: Impact on perceptions of listener helpfulness, sensitivity, and supportiveness and discloser emotional improvement. Western Journal of Communication, 79, 151–17

Adding responsiveness to our listening model demonstrates a fact wediscussed in Chapter 1: that communication is transactional in nature. Listening isn’t just a passive activity. As listeners, we are active participants in a communication transaction, sending and receiving messages simultaneously.

TYPES OF LISTENING RESPONSES Of the five components of listening described in the preceding section, it’s responding that lets us know if others are truly tuned in to what we’re saying (Maisel et al., 2008). Think for a moment of someone you consider a good listener. Why did you choose that person? It’s probably because of the way she or he behaves while you are speaking. Participants in one study said they expect listeners to be attentive, understanding, friendly, responsive, and able to maintain a conversational flow (Bodie et al., 2012). What behaviors mark those characteristics? Good listeners • ask and answer questions; • provide reflective and relevant feedback; • offer their own perspective; and • respond nonverbally by making eye contact, nodding their heads, and leaning forward.

208

PART 2

Silent Listening

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Questioning

Paraphrasing

Empathizing

Supporting

Analyzing

Evaluating

Advising

LESS REFLECTIVE MORE DIRECTIVE

MORE REFLECTIVE LESS DIRECTIVE

FIGURE 7.3 Types of Listening Responses

In other words, although listening begins as an internal mental process, others will determine whether and how you’re listening by monitoring your responses. As Figure 7.3 illustrates, listening responses range from reflective feedback, which invites the speaker to talk without concern of evaluation, to more directive responses, which evaluate the speaker’s messages. The primary goals of reflective feedback are to understand, confirm, and mirror what the speaker said. By contrast, the primary goals of directive feedback are to judge the speaker’s message and provide guidance. We spend the remainder of the chapter looking at when and how to use each response style along this spectrum. Each one is an important component of your listening toolkit.

SILENT LISTENING There are times when the best response is to say nothing, such as when you don’t want to encourage a speaker to keep talking. If a boss or instructor is droning on, and you need to leave for an appointment, you might not want to keep the conversation going. Or maybe a friend is retelling the story of a horrible date for what seems like the 10th time. Silent listening allows you to stay attentive and nonverbally responsive without offering any verbal feedback. This isn’t just an avoidance strategy. Silent listening also can be the right approach when you are open to the other person’s ideas but your interjections wouldn’t be appropriate. For instance, rather than interrupting a friend’s joke to ask for clarification, it might be more considerate to wait for the punch line. There are even times when silent listening can help others solve their problems. Sonia Johnson (1987; see also Smith, 2010) describes a powerful activity she calls “hearing into being.” The process is simple: In brainstorming sessions, each participant has totally uninterrupted floor time. “When we are free to talk without threat of interruption, evaluation, and the pressure of time,” notes Johnson, “we move quickly past known territory out into the frontiers of our thought” (p. 132). Johnson, who uses the technique in feminist seminars, reports that some women cry when they first experience it because they are not used to being listened to so seriously and completely.

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

When was the last time you talked, uninterrupted, to an attentive partner for more than a few minutes? How would you like the chance to develop your ideas without pausing for another’s comments? Silent listening is a response style that many of us could profit from using—and receiving—more often.

QUESTIONING Regarded as “the most popular piece of language” (Goodman & Esterly, 1990), questioning is asking for additional information. There are several reasons to ask sincere, nondirective questions: • To clarify meanings. Good listeners don’t assume they know what their partners mean; they ask for clarification with questions such as these: “What did you mean when you said he was being ‘unfair’?” “You said she’s ‘religious’—how do you define that term?” “You said you were going ‘fast’—just how fast were you going?” Of course, be sure to use an appropriate tone of voice when asking such questions, or they might sound like an inquisition (Tracy, 2002). • To learn about others’ thoughts, feelings, and wants. A sincere, sensitive, and caring question can draw out opinions, emotions, needs, and hopes. “What do you think about the new plan?” and “How did you feel when you heard the news?” are examples of such probes. When inquiring about personal information, it is usually best to ask open questions, which allow a variety of extended responses, rather than closed questions, which allow only a limited range of answers. For instance, “How did you feel?” is an open question that allows a variety of responses, whereas “Did you feel angry?” is a closed question that requires only a yes-or-no answer (and may direct respondents toward feelings they weren’t experiencing). • To encourage elaboration. People are sometimes hesitant to talk about themselves, or perhaps they aren’t sure if others are interested. Remarks such as “Tell me more about that,” “I’m not sure I understand,” and “I’m following you” convey concern and involvement. Notice that none of these examples end with a question mark. We can encourage elaboration simply by acknowledging that we are listening. • To encourage discovery. Asking questions can sometimes encourage others to explore their thoughts and feelings. “So, what do you see as your options?” may prompt an employee to come up with creative problem-solving alternatives. “What would be your ideal solution?” might help a friend get in touch with various wants and needs. Most important, encouraging discovery rather than dispensing advice indicates you have faith in others’ ability to think for themselves. This may be the most important message that you can communicate as an effective listener. • To gather more facts and details. People often appreciate listeners who want to learn more, as long as the questions aren’t intrusive. Questions such as “What did you do then?” and “What did she say

209

210

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

after that?” can help a listener understand the big picture. One study found that teachers who ask questions in parent–teacher conversations before launching into problem solving are perceived as more effective communicators (Castro et al., 2013). Not all questions are genuine requests for information. Whereas sincere questions are aimed at understanding others, counterfeit questions are really disguised attempts to send a message, not receive one. As such, they fit better at the “more directive” end of the listening response continuum p ictured inFigure 7.3 on page 208. It’s also likely that they’ll lead to a d efensive communication climate, as we discuss in Chapter 11. Counterfeit questions come in several varieties: • Questions that trap the speaker. Asking “You didn’t like that movie, did you?,” backs the respondent into a corner. By contrast, “What did you think of the movie?” is a sincere question that is easier to answer. Tag endings such as “Did you?” or “Isn’t that right?” can indicate that the asker is looking for agreement, not information. Although some listeners use these tag endings in sincere questions to confirm and facilitate understanding (Coates, 1986), others use tags to coerce agreement or to accuse: “You said you’d call at five o’clock, but you forgot, didn’t you?” Similarly, questions that begin with “Don’t you” (such as “Don’t you think she would make a good boss?”) direct others toward a desired response. As a simple solution, changing “Don’t you?” to “Do you?” makes the question less leading. • Questions that make statements. “Are you finally ready?” is more of a statement than a question—a fact unlikely to be lost on the targeted person. Emphasizing certain words also can turn a question into a statement: “You lent money to Tony?” We also use questions to offer advice. The person who asks, “Are you going to stand up to him and give him what he deserves?” has clearly stated an opinion about what should be done. • Questions that carry hidden agendas. “Are you busy Friday night?” is a dangerous question to answer. If you say “No,” thinking the person has something fun in mind, you won’t like hearing “Good, because I need some help moving my piano.” Obviously, such questions are not designed to enhance understanding; they are setups for the proposal that follows. Other examples include “Will you do me a favor?” and “If I tell you what happened, will you promise not to get mad?” Because they are strategic rather than spontaneous, these questions are likely to provoke defensiveness (see Chapter 11). Wise communicators answer questions that mask hidden agendas cautiously with responses such as “It depends”

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

or “Let me hear what you have in mind before I answer.” • Questions that seek a positive judgment. “How do I look?” is often a request for a particular response (“You look great!”). The listener must carefully consider the context before responding. • Questions based on unchecked assumptions. “Why aren’t you listening to me?” assumes the other person isn’t paying attention. “What’s the matter?” assumes that something is wrong. As we explained in Chapter 4, perception checking is a much better way of confirming assumptions. As you recall, a perception check offers a description of behavior and interpretations, followed by a sincere request for clarification: “When you keep looking at your phone, I think you’re not listening to me, but maybe I’m wrong. Are you paying attention?”

211

Crime show franchises such as CSI and Law & Order are a fixture of television programming. Their main characters must listen carefully to do their jobs effectively. In what types of situations can you become a better listener by asking probing questions and analyzing statements critically?

No question is inherently sincere or counterfeit, because the meaning and intent of any statement are shaped by its context. Moreover, a slight change in tone of voice or facial expression can turn a sincere question into a counterfeit one and vice versa. Consider how the questions “What are you doing?” or “When will you be finished?” could be asked in different ways, eliciting different responses. Research about coming-out conversations (Manning, 2015) illustrates the delicate balance of using questions as an active listener. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual participants in a study said they wanted to hear certain types of questions from those who listened to their coming-out disclosures. Participants viewed sincere questions as indicators of open communication and a desire to understand. They didn’t appreciate questions that seemed leading (“Are you sure this isn’t a phase?”), defensive (“Is this because Iwasn’t around much?”), or inappropriate (asking for graphic sexual details). When a topic is sensitive and emotionally charged, it’s best to keep your questions as open and neutral as possible. “Tell me more—I’m listening” is usually a good option—particularly when it’s asked sincerely.

PARAPHRASING Paraphrasing is providing feedback that restates, in your own words, the message you thought the speaker sent. You may wonder, “Why would Iwant to restate what’s already been said?” Consider this simple exchange: “Let’s make plans for next weekend.” “So you want to chat next week to make plans for Saturday?” “No, I meant we should check our calendars now to see if we’re free to go to the game on Sunday.”

212

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

By paraphrasing, the listener learned that the speaker wanted to make plans now, not later—and that “weekend” meant Sunday, not Saturday. Note that the listener rephrased rather than repeated the message. In effective paraphrasing, you restate what you think the speaker has said in your own words as a way of checking the meaning you’ve assigned to the message. It’s important that you paraphrase, not “parrot-phrase.” If you simply repeat the speaker’s comments verbatim, you’ll sound foolish—and just as important, you still might misunderstand what’s been said.

Types of Paraphrasing Statements Restating another person’s message in a way that sounds natural can sometimes be a difficult skill to master. Here are three approaches to get you started: 1. Change the speaker’s wording. Speaker: “Bilingual education is just another failed idea of bleedingheart liberals.” Paraphrase: “So, if I understand what you’re saying, you’re mad because you think bilingual ed sounds good, but it doesn’t work?” 2. Offer an example of what you think the speaker is talking about. When the speaker makes an abstract statement, you may suggest a specific example or two to see if your understanding is accurate: Speaker: “Lee is such a jerk. I can’t believe the way he acted last night.” Paraphrase: “You thought those jokes were pretty offensive, huh?”

CartoonStock www.CartoonStock.com

3. Reflect the underlying theme of the speaker’s remarks. When you want to summarize the theme that seems to have run through another person’s conversation, a complete or partial perception check is appropriate: Speaker: “Be safe tonight.” Paraphrase: “Sounds like you’re worried something’s going to happen to me. Am I right?” There are several reasons why paraphrasing assists listening. First, as the preceding examples illustrate, it allows you to find out if the message received is the message the sender intended. Second, paraphrasing often draws out further information from the speaker, much like questioning. (In fact, a good paraphrase often ends with a question such as, “Is that what you meant?”) Third, paraphrasing is an ideal way to take the heat out of intense discussions. When conversations intensify, it is often because the people involved believe they aren’t being heard. Rather than escalating the conflict, try paraphrasing what the other person says: “Okay, let me be sure I understand you. It sounds like you’re concerned about . . .” Paraphrasing

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

usually short-circuits a defensive spiral because it assures the other person of your involvement and concern. For these and other reasons, we usually feel a sense of affinity for those who make the effort to paraphrase our messages (Weger et al., 2010).

Paraphrasing Factual Information Summarizing facts, data, and details is important during personal or professional conversations. “We’ve agreed that we’ll take another few days to think about our choices and make a decision on Tuesday—right?” might be an effective way to conclude a business lunch. A questioning tone should be used; a listener wants to be sure that meaning has been shared. Even personal topics are sometimes best handled on a factual level: “So for you the main issue is that our friends take up all the parking spaces in front of your place. Is that it?” Even if you are under attack, maintaining a neutral tone helps clarify facts before you offer your reaction. It is also a good idea to paraphrase instructions, directions, and decisions before acting on what you think has been said.

Paraphrasing Personal Information Whereas restating factual information is relatively easy, it takes a sensitive ear to listen for others’ thoughts, feelings, and wants. The underlying message is often the more important one, and effective listeners try to reflect what they hear at this level (Bodie et al., 2016). Listening for thoughts, feelings, and wants addresses three domains of human experience: cognitive (rational), affective (emotional), and behavioral (desired action). Read the following statement as if a friend were talking to you, and listen for all three components (think, feel, want) in the message: Maria has hardly been home all week—she’s been so busy with work. She rushes in just long enough to eat dinner, then she buries herself writing code until bedtime. Then she tells me today that she’s going out Saturday with some friends from high school. I guess the honeymoon is over.

What is the speaker thinking, feeling, and wanting? Paraphrasing can help you find out. Here are two possible responses: “Sounds like you’re unhappy (feeling) because you think Maria is ignoring you (thought) and you want her to spend more time with you (want).” “So you’re frustrated (feeling) because you’d like Maria to change (want), but you think it’s hopeless because you have such different priorities (thought).” Recognize that you may not be accurate with either option. Recognize also that you could identify an entirely different think-feel-want set. The fact that these examples offer distinct interpretations of the same message demonstrates the value of paraphrasing.

213

214

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Your paraphrases don’t have to be as long as these examples. It’s often a good idea to mix paraphrasing with other listening responses. In many cases, you’ll want to reflect only one or two of the think-feel-want components. The key is giving feedback that is appropriate for the situation and offering it in a way that assists the listening process. Because paraphrasing is likely to be an unfamiliar way of responding, it may feel awkward at first. Research suggests that rehearsing paraphrasing in imagined interactions can help you respond more effectively in actual conversations (Vickery et al., 2015). If you start by paraphrasing occasionally and then gradually do it more often, you can begin to see the benefits of this method.

EMPATHIZING Empathizing is a response style listeners use when they want to show they identify with a speaker. As discussed in Chapter 4, empathy involves perspective taking, emotional contagion, and genuine concern. When listeners put the attitude of empathy into verbal and nonverbal responses, they engage in empathizing. Sometimes these responses can be quite brief: “Uh-huh,” “I see,” “Wow!,” “Ouch!,” “Whew!,” “My goodness.” In other cases, empathizing is expressed in statements such as these: “I can see that really hurts.” “I know how important that was to you.” “It’s no fun to feel unappreciated.” “I can tell you’re really excited about that.” “Wow, that must be rough.” “I think I’ve felt that way, too.” “Looks like that really made your day.” “This means a lot to you, doesn’t it?” Empathizing falls near the middle of the listening response spectrum pictured in Figure 7.3. It is different from the more reflective responses at the left end of the spectrum, which attempt to gather information neutrally. It is also different from the more evaluative styles at the right end of the spectrum, which offer more direction than reflection. To understand how empathizing compares to other types of responses, consider these examples: “So your boss isn’t happy with your performance, and you’re thinking about finding a new job.” (Paraphrasing) “Ouch—I’ll bet it hurt when your boss said you weren’t doing a good job.” (Empathizing) “Hey, you’ll land on your feet—your boss doesn’t appreciate what a star you are.” (Supporting) Notice that empathizing identifies with the speaker’s emotions and perceptions more than paraphrasing does, yet offers less evaluation and agreement than supporting responses. In fact, it’s possible to empathize with others while disagreeing with them (Gordon & Chen, 2016). For instance, the response “I can tell that this issue is important to you”

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

legitimizes a speaker’s feelings without assenting to that person’s point of view (note that it could be said to either a friend or a foe at a business meeting). Empathizing is therefore an important skill whether you agree or disagree with the speaker. Perhaps a better way to explain empathizing is to describe what it doesn’t sound like. Many listeners believe they are empathizing when,in fact, they are offering responses that are evaluative and directive— providing what has been called “cold comfort” (Burleson, 2003; Hample, 2011). Listeners are probably not empathizing when they display the following behaviors: • Denying others the right to their feelings. Consider this common response to another person’s problem: “Don’t worry about it.” Although the remark may be intended as a reassuring comment, the underlying message is that the speaker wants the person to feel differently. It’s unlikely that people can or will stop worrying or being upset just because you tell them to do so. Research shows that attempting to identify with others’ emotions is more effective than denying their feelings and perspectives (Burleson & Samter, 1985, 1994). • Minimizing the significance of the situation. Think about the times someone said to you, “Hey, it’s only .” You can probably fill in the blank a variety of ways: “a game,” “words,” “a test,” “a party.” How did you react? You probably thought the person who said it just didn’t understand. To someone who has been the victim of verbal abuse, the hurtful message wasn’t “just words”; to a child who didn’t get an invitation, it wasn’t “just a party” (see Burleson, 1984); to a student who has flunked an important exam, it wasn’t “just a test” (see Burleson & Samter, 1985). When you minimize the significance of someone else’s experience, you aren’t empathizing. Instead, you are interpreting the event from your perspective and then passing judgment—rarely a helpful response. • Focus on yourself. It can be tempting to talk at length about a similar experience you’ve encountered (“I know exactly how you feel. Something like that happened to me—let me tell you about it. . . .”). Although your intent might be to show empathy, research shows that such messages aren’t perceived as helpful because they draw attention away from the distressed person (Burleson, 2008). • Raining on the speaker’s parade. Most of the preceding examples deal with difficult situations or messages about pain. However, empathizing involves identifying with others’ joys as well as their sorrows. Many of us can recall coming home with exciting news, only to be told “A 5 percent raise? That isn’t so great.” “An A minus? Why didn’t you get an A?” “Big deal—I got one of those years ago.” Taking the wind out of someone’s sails is the opposite of empathizing. Research shows that we don’t get the full enjoyment out of good news until we share it with someone who responds empathically (Lambert et al., 2013; Reis et al., 2010).

215

Watch and Discuss Look up and watch the video “Brené Brown on Empathy.” 1. Consider how some attempts at empathizing fall short of being helpful. 2. Discuss how you like others to respond when you tell them about struggles you’re having.

216

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Empathic listening is essentially an expression of affection, as it communicates validation and a sense of worth to the message-sender (Floyd, 2014). Research suggests that emotional intelligence is needed to offer these nonjudgmental, other-oriented responses (Pence & Vickery, 2012). Fortunately, research also indicates that both adults and children can learn the ability to offer such responses (Dexter, 2013). The exercises at the end of this chapter can offer you valuable practice in developing your skill as an empathic communicator.

SUPPORTING So far, we have looked at listening responses that put a premium on being reflective and nonevaluative. However, there are times when other people want to hear more than a reflection of how they feel: They would like to know how you feel about them. Supporting responses reveal the listener’s solidarity with the speaker’s situation. Brant Burleson (2003) describes supporting as “expressions of care, concern, affection, and interest, especially during times of stress or upset” (p. 552). There are several types of supportive responses: Agreement

“Yeah, that class was tough for me too.” “You’re right—the landlord is being unfair.”

Offers to help “I’m here if you need me.” “Let me try to explain it to him.” Praise “I don’t care what the boss said: I think you did a great job!” “You’re a terrific person! If she doesn’t recognize it, that’s her problem.” Reassurance “The worst part seems to be over. It will probably get easier from here.” “You’ve got this.” Diversion

“Let’s catch a movie and get your mind off this.” “That reminds me of the time we . . .”

Men and women often differ in the way they act in supporting others. Women are more likely than men to give supportive responses when presented with another person’s problem (Burleson et al., 2005; Hale et al., 1997) and are more skillful at composing and processing such messages (Burleson et al., 2009, 2011). In fact, women who aren’t skillful at offering emotional support to their female friends run the risk of being shunned by their same-sex peers (Holmstrom et al., 2005). By contrast, men tend to respond to others’ problems by offering advice or by diverting the topic (Derlega et al., 1994; Woodward et al., 1996). This behavior may be due in part to societal norms that discourage men from offering sensitive emotional support (Burleson et al., 2005). Yet men and women respond well to the same types of comforting messages. Both feel most supported by highly personal messages that are delivered with nonverbal immediacy such as touching and maintaining eye

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

217

contact (Jones & Burleson, 2003). Moreover, both men and women appreciate the kind of social support we describe in Chapter 9. But even the most sincere supportive efforts don’t always help. Mourners suffering from the recent death of a loved one often report that a majority of the comments made to them are unhelpful (Davidowitz & Myrick, 1984; Glanz, 2007). Most of these statements are advice: “You’ve got to get out more” and “Don’t question God’s will.” Another frequent response is an attempt to offer perspective, such as, “She’s out of pain now” and “Time heals all wounds.” A study of bereaved parents found that these kinds of clichés actually do more harm than good (Toller, 2011). People who are grieving don’t appreciate being told how to feel or what they should do. Instead, bereaved parents said they would feel more supported by the silent listening approach described on page208. One mother who lost a child offered this recommendation for people who want to help a grieving friend: Go and be with them. You don’t have to say anything, just say, “I don’t know how you feel, but I’m here.” Go sit down and just be with that person. What I wouldn’t have given to have somebody come and knock on the door and stop in. (Toller, 2011, p. 26)

As with the other helping styles, supporting can be beneficial, but only under certain conditions (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997; Halone & Pecchioni, 2001):

At times, offering support can be welcome, but sometimes it isn’t helpful. Use the information in this section to construct personal guidelines for when and how to offer support. How can you apply these guidelines in an important relationship?

• Make sure your expression of support is sincere. Phony agreement or encouragement is probably worse than no support at all because it adds the insult of your dishonesty to whatever pain the other person is already feeling. • Be sure the other person can accept your support. Sometimes people are so upset that they aren’t ready or able to hear anything positive. When you know a friend is going through a difficult time, it’s important not to be overly intrusive before that person is ready to talk and receive your support (Clark & Delia, 1997). • Focus on “here and now” rather than “then and there.” Although it’s sometimes true that “You’ll feel better tomorrow,” it sometimes isn’t. More important, focusing on the future avoids supporting in the present. Even if the prediction that “ten years from now, you won’t even remember her name” proves correct, it gives little comfort to someone experiencing heartbreak today.

218

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

ANALYZING In analyzing a situation, the listener offers an interpretation of a speaker’s message (“I think what’s really bothering you is . . .”; “She’s doing it because . . .”; or “Maybe the problem started when he . . .”). Communicators who respond this way often use the analytical listening style described earlier in this chapter (page 201). This style can be effective in helping others see alternative meanings of a situation. Sometimes an analysis helps clarify a confusing problem, providing a more objective understanding. Research suggests that analytic listeners are able to hear others’ concerns without becoming upset themselves, which can be an advantage in problem solving (Weaver & Kirtley, 1995). In other cases, an analysis can create more problems than it solves, for two reasons. First, your interpretation may not be correct, in which case the problem holder may become even more confused by accepting it. Second, even if your analysis is accurate, sharing it with the problem holder might not be useful. There’s a chance that it will arouse defensiveness (analysis implies being superior and in a position to evaluate). Besides, the problem holder may not be able to understand your view of the problem without working it out personally. How can you know when it’s helpful to offer an analysis? Here are some guidelines to follow: • Offer your interpretation in a tentative way rather than as absolute fact. There’s a big difference between saying “Maybe the reason is . . .” and insisting “This is the truth.” • Your analysis ought to have a reasonable chance of being correct. An inaccurate interpretation—especially one that sounds plausible—can leave a person more confused than before. • Make sure the other person will be receptive to your analysis. Even if your interpretation is completely accurate, your thoughts won’t help if the problem holder isn’t ready to consider them. Pay attention to the other person’s verbal and nonverbal cues to see how your analysis is being received. • Be sure that your motive for offering an analysis is truly to help the other person. It can be tempting to offer an analysis to show how brilliant you are or even to make the other person feel bad for not having thought of the right answer in the first place. Needless to say, an analysis offered under such conditions isn’t helpful.

EVALUATING An evaluating response appraises the sender’s thoughts or behaviors in some way. The evaluation may be favorable (“That’s a good idea” or “You’re on the right track now”) or unfavorable (“An attitude like that won’t get you anywhere”). In either case, it implies that the person evaluating is in some way qualified to pass judgment on the speaker’s thoughts or actions. Communicators who respond this way often approach situations with the critical listening style described earlier in this chapter (page 201).

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

Sometimes negative evaluations are purely critical. How many times have you heard responses such as “Well, you asked for it!,” or “I told you so!,” or “You’re just feeling sorry for yourself”? Such comments usually make matters worse by arousing defensiveness. Other times, negative evaluations are less critical. These involve what we usually call constructive criticism, which is intended to help the problem holder improve in the future. Friends give this sort of response about the choice of everything from clothing, to jobs, to friends. A common setting for constructive criticism is school, where instructors evaluate students’ work to help them master concepts and skills. Even constructive criticism can arouse defensiveness because it may threaten the self-concept of the person at whom it is directed (see Chapter 12 for tips on creating supportive communication climates).

ADVISING

219

Media Clip

Responding Directively: Scandal If you’re sad and want a shoulder to cry on, Olivia Pope (Kerry Washington) isn’t the best choice. But if you’re in a jam and need advice, she’s the right person for the job. As the show’s title suggests, most people who seek Pope’s help are embroiled in some sort of scandal. As she listens to their problems, Olivia doesn’t have much time for, or interest in, expressing sympathy for their plight. Instead, she moves quickly to apply her expertise to their dilemmas. Along the way, she often tells people to toughen up, move on, and not waste time on emotional displays. In terms of listening responses, Olivia is short on empathizing and long on advising. That’s what her clients are paying for: a tough-minded professional who knows her way out of a scandal.

When approached with another’s problem, the most common reaction is advising (Feng & Magen, 2016). We’re all familiar with advising responses: “If you’re so unhappy, you should just quit the job”; “Just tell him what you think”; “You should take some time off.” Even though advice might be just what a person needs, there are several reasons why it often isn’t helpful. First, it may not offer the best suggestion about how to act. There’s often a temptation to tell others how you would behave in their place, but it’s important to realize that what’s right for one person may not be right for another. Second, the position of advice recipient is a potentially unwelcome identity because it may imply inferiority (Shaw & Hepburn, 2013). Third, a related consequence of advising is that it often allows others to avoid responsibility for their decisions. A partner who follows a suggestion of yours that doesn’t work out can always pin the blame on you. Finally, people often don’t want advice: They may not be ready to accept it and instead may simply need to talk out their thoughts and feelings.

220

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Exchanging Advice Online Once upon a time, if you wanted medical recommendations from someone other than a professional, you picked up the phone and called a friend or family member. Today, it’s not uncommon to solicit advice from a virtual stranger—with virtual being the operative term. Elizabeth Sillence categorized and analyzed advice exchanges in an online breast cancer support group site. Here are some of her observations: • Nearly 40 percent of the posted messages involved advice seeking or giving—so it’s clearly a site where people look for and extend counsel. • Very few posters asked the community to tell them what they “should do.” They typically requested “comments” rather than “advice.”

• Recommendations were often couched within personal narratives, using a “here’s what worked for me” format. • Advice seekers tried to find people who were “in the same boat,” preferring to hear from those whose situations matched their own. These observations reinforce some important principles about communicating advice. People are more willing to listen to advice that’s requested, especially when it comes from a credible, empathic source. When giving advice, it’s best to offer it as openhanded information rather than as heavyhanded prescriptions.

Sillence, E. (2013). Giving and receiving peer advice in an online breast cancer support group. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 480–485.

Studies on advice giving (summarized in MacGeorge et al., 2008) offer the following important considerations when trying to help others: • Is the advice needed? If the person has already taken a course of action, giving advice after the fact (“I can’t believe you got back together with him”) is rarely appreciated. • Is the advice wanted? People generally don’t value unsolicited advice. It’s usually best to ask if the speaker is interested in hearing your counsel. Remember that sometimes people just want a listening ear, not solutions to their problems. • Is the advice given in the right sequence? Advice is more likely to be received after the listener first offers empathizing, paraphrasing, and questioning responses to understand the speaker and the situation better. • Is the advice coming from an expert? If you want to offer advice about anything from car purchasing to relationship managing, it’s important to have experience and success in those matters. If you don’t have expertise, it’s a good idea to offer the speaker supportive responses, then encourage the person to seek out expert counsel. • Is the advisor a close and trusted person? Although sometimes we seek out advice from people we don’t know well (perhaps because

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

they have expertise), in most cases we value advice given within the context of a close and ongoing interpersonal relationship. • Is the advice offered in a sensitive, face-saving manner? No one likes to feel bossed or belittled, even if the advice is good (Miczo & Burgoon, 2008). Remember that messages have both content and relational dimensions. Sometimes the unstated relational messages when giving advice (“I’m smarter than you”; “You’re not bright enough to figure this out yourself ”) will keep people from hearing counsel.

WHICH RESPONSE TYPE TO USE? You can see that each type of listening response has advantages and disadvantages. So which type is best? There isn’t a simple answer to this question. All response types and styles have the potential to help others accept their situation, feel better, and have a sense of control over their problems (Imhof, 2003; Weger et al., 2014). As a rule of thumb, it’s probably wise to begin with responses from the left side of the listening response spectrum: silent listening, questioning, paraphrasing, and empathizing. These skills comprise what pioneering therapist Carl Rogers (2003) called active listening (see also Weger etal., 2014). Rogers maintained that helpful interpersonal listening begins with reflective, nondirective responses. Once you’ve gathered the facts and demonstrated your interest and concern, it’s likely that the speaker will be more receptive to (and perhaps even ask for) your analyzing, evaluating, and advising responses (MacGeorge et al., 2017). You can boost the odds of choosing the best response in each situation by considering three factors: 1. Think about the situation, and match your response to the nature of the problem. People sometimes need your advice. In other cases, your encouragement and support will be most helpful; and in still other instances, your analysis or judgment may be truly useful. And, as you have seen, there are times when your questioning and paraphrasing can help others find their own answer. 2. Besides considering the situation, you also should think about the other person when deciding which approach to use. It’s important to be sure that the other person is open to receiving any kind of help. Furthermore, you need to be confident that you will be regarded as someone whose support is valuable. The same listening response can be regarded as helpful or not depending on who’s delivering it (Rossetto, 2015). Consider how an “insider” to your job, social circle, or family can offer encouragement or advice (“Hang in there—it will get better”) that might ring hollow if it came from an “outsider.” It’s also important to match the type of response you offer with the style of the person to whom it is directed (Bippus, 2001).

221

222

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

One study found that highly rational people tend to respond more positively to advice than do more emotional people (Feng & Lee, 2010). Many communicators are extremely defensive and aren’t capable of receiving analysis or judgments without lashing out. Still others aren’t equipped to think through problems clearly enough to profit from questioning and paraphrasing. Sophisticated listeners choose a style that fits the person. 3. Finally, think about yourself when deciding how to respond. Most of us reflexively use one or two styles. You may be best at listening quietly, posing a question, or paraphrasing from time to time. Or perhaps you are especially insightful and can offer a truly useful analysis of the problem. Of course, it’s also possible to rely on a response style that is unhelpful. You may be overly judgmental or too eager to advise, even when your suggestions are invited or productive. As you think about how to respond to another’s problems, consider your weaknesses as well as your strengths.

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING Objective 7.1 Describe the nature

of listening and the listening styles that interpersonal communicators use. Listening is both more frequent and less emphasized than speaking. Despite its relative invisibility, listening is at least as important as speaking. Research shows that good listening is vital for both personal and professional success. Listening is the process of making sense of others’ spoken messages. We listen to many messages mindlessly, but it’s important to listen mindfully in a variety of situations. We also listen to others based on our personal styles and listening goals. Sometimes our listening is task oriented; other times it’s more relational, analytical, or critical. Good listeners match their styles with the needs of the situation. Q: Keep a diary of your listening behavior for a representative day. Identify your listening style(s) in each situation you record. Which

styles did you use most and least often? How satisfied are you with this finding?

Objective 7.2 Explain the challenges that can impede effective listening.

Most peoples’ understanding of listening is based on poor listening habits and also on several misconceptions that communicators need to correct. Mindful listening is not easy; rather, it is a challenge that requires much effort and talent. Several barriers can hamper effective listening: personal concerns, information overload, rapid thought, and both internal and external noise. Even careful listening does not mean that all listeners will receive the same message. A wide variety of factors discussed in this chapter can result in widely varying interpretations of even simple statements. Q: For each entry in the diary from Objective 7.1, evaluate how effectively you listened. Which

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

of the challenges described in this chapter interfered most with your listening? How can you better manage those challenges?

Objective 7.3 Identify the five

components of the interpersonal listening process. Listening consists of several components: hearing, attending to a message, understanding the statement, recalling the message after the passage of time, and responding to the speaker. Roadblocks to effective communication can occur at each stage of the process. Q: Use the events in your diary to identify your strengths and weaknesses as a listener. Which components of the listening process do you manage well, and which are problematic? How can you address the problematic components?

Objective 7.4 Effectively use a variety of reflective and directive listening responses.

223

Listening responses are important because they let us know if others are truly tuned in to what we’re saying. Listening responses can be placed on a continuum. More reflective/less directive responses include silent listening, questioning, paraphrasing, and empathizing. These put a premium on gathering information and showing interest and concern. Less reflective/more directive responses include supporting, analyzing, evaluating, and advising. These put a premium on offering input and direction. It is possible to use the “more reflective” listening responses to help people arrive at their own decisions without offering advice or evaluation. The most effective listeners use several styles, depending on the situation, the other person, and their own personal skills and motivation. Q: Use your listening diary to identify your most and least frequent response styles. How satisfied are you with your findings? How can you respond more effectively?

KEY TERMS • Advising (219) • Analytical listening (201) • Analyzing (218) • Attending (204) • Closed questions (209) • Counterfeit questions (210) • Critical listening (201) • Empathizing (214) • Evaluating (218)

• Hearing (198) • Listening (197) • Listening fidelity (206) • Mindful listening (198) • Mindless listening (198) • Open questions (209) • Paraphrasing (211) • Questioning (209) • Relational listening (199)

• Remembering (206) • Responding (206) • Silent listening (208) • Sincere questions (210) • Supporting (216) • Task-oriented listening (199) • Understanding (205)

224

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

ACTIVITIES 1. With your classmates, develop a listening code of ethics. What responsibility do communicators have to listen as carefully and thoughtfully as possible to other speakers? Are there ever cases where the poor listening habits listed on pages 203–204 (e.g., pseudolistening, stage hogging, and defensive listening) are justified? How would you feel if you knew that others weren’t listening to you? 2. Explore the benefits of silent listening by using a “talking stick.” Richard Hyde (1993) developed this exercise from the Native American tradition of “council.” Gather a group of people in a circle, and designate a particular item as the talking stick. Participants will then pass the stick around the circle. Participants may speak a. only when holding the stick; b. for as long as they hold the stick; and c. without interruption from anyone else in the circle.

When a member is through speaking, the stick passes to the left and the speaker surrendering the stick must wait until it has made its way around the circle before speaking again. After each member of the group has had the chance to speak, discuss how this experience differs from more common approaches to listening. Decide how the desirable parts of this method could be introduced in everyday conversations. 3. Practice your ability to paraphrase by following these steps. a. Choose a partner, and designate one of you as A and the other as B. Find a subject on which you and your partner seem to disagree—a personal dispute, a philosophical or moral issue, or perhaps a matter of personal taste. b. A begins by making a statement on the subject. B’s job is to paraphrase the idea. In this step, B should only reiterate what he or she heard A say, without adding any judgment or interpretation. B’s job here is simply to understand A—not to agree or disagree with A.

c. A responds by telling B whether the response was accurate and by making any necessary additions or corrections to clarify the message. d. B then paraphrases the revised statement. This process should continue until A is sure that B understands him or her. e. Now B and A reverse roles and repeat the procedure in steps a–d. Continue the conversation until both partners are satisfied that they have explained themselves fully and have been understood by the other person.

After the discussion has ended, consider how this process differed from typical conversations on controversial topics. Was there greater understanding here? Do the partners feel better about one another? Finally, ask yourself how your life might change if you used more paraphrasing in everyday conversations. 4. Explore the various types of listening responses by completing the following steps. a. Join with two partners to form a trio. Designate members as A, B, and C. b. A begins by sharing a current, real problem with B. The problem needn’t be a major life crisis, but it should be a real one. B should respond in whatever way seems most helpful. C’s job is to categorize each response by B as silent listening, questioning, paraphrasing, empathizing, supporting, analyzing, evaluating, or advising. c. After a 4- to 5-minute discussion, C should summarize B’s response styles. A then describes which of the styles were most helpful and which were not helpful. d. Repeat the same process two more times, switching roles so that each person has been in all of the positions. e. Based on their findings, the trio should develop conclusions about what combination of response styles can be most helpful.

CH A PT ER 7 L istening : Receiving and Responding

SCORING FOR ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION (PAGE 200)

Add your responses to items 1–4. This is your Relational Listening score: . Undergraduate students had an average score of 22, with most scoring between 21 and 24. Add your responses to items 5–8. This is your Analytical Listening score: . Undergraduate students had an average score of 19, with most scoring between 17 and 21. Add your responses to items 9–12. This is your Task Listening score: . Undergraduate students had an average score of 20, with most scoring between 18 and 22. Add your responses to items 13–16. This is your Critical Listening score: . Undergraduate students had an average score of 18, with most scoring between 16 and 20.

225

8 Emotions LEARNING OBJECTIVES

CHAPTER OUTLINE

8.1

What Are Emotions? 229

8.2 8.3 8.4

Explain how emotions are experienced andexpressed. Describe the various personal and social influences on emotional expression. Demonstrate how to express your emotions appropriately and effectively. Distinguish between facilitative and debilitative emotions, and explain how reappraisal may be used to manage emotionseffectively.

• Physiological Changes 229 • Nonverbal Behavior 230 • Cognitive Interpretations 230 • Verbal Expression 231

Influences on Emotional Expression 232 • Personality 232 • Culture 233 • Gender 234 • Social Conventions and Roles 235 • Social Media 235 • Emotional Contagion 237

Expressing Emotions Effectively 238

FEATURES Media Clip: Intelligence of Another Variety: The Big Bang Theory 228 Watch and Discuss: “The Marriage Hack” 230 Focus on Research: Managing Grief with Humor 233 At Work: Emotional Labor on the Job 236 Dark Side of Communication: Fictional Characters, Real Feelings: Parasocial Relationships 237 Assessing Your Communication: Your Emotional Intelligence 243 Focus on Research: When Talking About Feelings Makes Things Worse 252 Media Clip: Self-Talk and Resilience: Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt 254

• Recognize Your Feelings 238 • Choose the Best Language 239 • Share Multiple Feelings 241 • Recognize the Difference Between Feeling and Acting 242 • Accept Responsibility for Your Feelings 242 • Choose the Best Time and Place to Express Your Feelings 242

Managing Emotions 244 • Facilitative and Debilitative Emotions 244 • Thoughts Cause Feelings 245 • Irrational Thinking and Debilitative Emotions 247 • Minimizing Debilitative Emotions 251 • Maximizing Facilitative Emotions 254 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 255 KEY TERMS 256 ACTIVITIES 256 227

228

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

MAGINE HOW different your life would be if you lost your ability to experience emotions. An emotionless world would be free of boredom, frustration, fear, and loneliness. But it would also be without joy, pride, excitement, and love. Few of us would be willing to make that sort of trade-off. Daniel Goleman (1995) coined the term emotional intelligence to describe the ability to understand and manage one’s own emotions and to be sensitive to others’ feelings. Goleman maintains that success depends in

Media Clip

great part on one’s “EQ”—emotional intelligence quota. In support of that claim, studies show that emotional intelligence is positively linked with s elf-esteem and life satisfaction (Carmeli et al., 2009), healthy conflict communication (Smith et al., 2008), empathic listening abilities (Pence & Vickery, 2012), and effective workplace interactions (Miao et al., 2017). Some employers even use emotional intelligence measures as part of their personnel selection process (Iliescu etal.,2012). Stop for a moment and identify someone you know who is emotionally intelligent. Perhaps it’s a family member who is in touch with a wide range of feelings without being overwhelmed by them, or

Intelligence of Another Variety: The Big Bang Theory Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) is a theoretical physicist who holds two doctorates. But although he may be book smart, Sheldon lacks emotional intelligence. He’s short on empathy, social skills, and the ability to express his emotions effectively. He can also be blunt and sarcastic (punctuating his wisecracks with “Bazinga!”). Whereas viewers may find Cooper’s ineptitude amusing, it usually doesn’t help his relationships with friends and coworkers. Think of some of the other characters on The Big Bang Theory and you’ll realize that emotional intelligence is best seen on a continuum—and some people have more of it than others. The good news is that emotional intelligence can grow, as Sheldon demonstrates. Over the course of several seasons, he begins picking up on emotional cues from others (very slowly).

a boss who makes wise and rational choices even under stress. Now think of a person who might be lacking emotional intelligence. Maybe it’s a colleague who is uptight and dismissive about honest human feelings, or a friend who blows up at the smallest inconvenience. And finally, assess your own emotional intelligence. How well do you understand and manage your emotions, and how sensitive are you to others’ feelings? The Assessing Your Communication tool on page 243 can help you make that call. Because emotions are such an important part of human communication, in this chapter we explore what feelings are, discuss the ways they are handled in contemporary society, and see how recognizing and expressing them can improve relationships. We also provide some guiding principles that should give you a clearer idea of when and how to express your emotions constructively. Finally, we explore methods for coping with troublesome feelings and enhancing positive emotions.

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

229

WHAT ARE EMOTIONS? Suppose an extraterrestrial visitor asked you to explain emotions. How would you answer? You might start by saying that emotions are things that we feel. But this doesn’t say much, for in turn you would probably describe feelings as synonymous with emotions. Social scientists generally agree that there are several components to the phenomena we label as an emotion (Gentsch etal., 2014; Planalp etal., 2006).

PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES When we experience strong emotions, many bodily changes occur (Chang etal., 2013). For example, the physiological components of fear include increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, increased adrenaline secretions, elevated blood sugar, slowed digestion, and pupil dilation. Marriage researcher John Gottman notes that symptoms such as these occur when couples engage in intense conflicts (Gottman & Silver, 1999). He calls the condition “flooding” and has found that it impedes effective problemsolving. Research supports the notion that we experience emotions not just in the mind but throughout the body (Nummenmaa etal., 2014). As Figure8.1 shows, disgust may turn our stomachs, fear can tighten our chest, and happiness can make us feel warm all over. Noticing physiological sensations such as these can offer a significant clue to your emotions. FIGURE 8.1 Body Temperatures Associated with Various Emotions

230

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR Not all physical changes that accompany emotions are internal. Emotions are often apparent from observable physiological changes, such as blushing or perspiring. Other changes involve behavior: a distinctive facial expression, posture, gestures, different vocal tone and rate, and so on. These reactions can often be noticed and interpreted by others. Subjects who watched short videos of basketball and table tennis players could reliably determine from the players’ nonverbal behavior alone whether the athletes were winning or losing, regardless of the subject’s own experience with the sport (Furley & Schweizer, 2014). Although it’s reasonably easy to tell when someone is feeling a strong emotion, it’s more difficult to be certain exactly what that emotion might be. A slumped posture and sigh may be a sign of sadness or possibly just fatigue. Likewise, widened eyes might indicate excitement or fear. As you learned in Chapter 6, nonverbal behavior is generally ambiguous and can easily be misread. We usually think of nonverbal behavior as the reaction to an emotional state, but there may be times when the reverse is true—when nonverbal behavior causes emotions. For instance, clenching your fists can help you feel stronger (Schubert & Koole, 2009), and walking with an upbeat strut can stave off feelings of depression (Michalak etal., 2015). (For more examples of nonverbal behaviors affecting emotions, see C hapter6, p. 175). As behavioral scientists like to say, it can be easier to act yourself into new ways of feeling than to feel yourself into new ways ofacting. Nonverbal expressions of emotion are often interconnected with verbal ones. One study showed that participants who generated words associated with pride and disappointment experienced a change in posture (Oosterwijk et al., 2009). They unconsciously stood taller when talking about pride and slumped when using words for disappointment. The participants also experienced emotions associated with their words (e.g., feeling sad when speaking about disappointment).

COGNITIVE INTERPRETATIONS The mind plays an important role in determining how we feel (Genov, 2001). Interestingly, the physiological changes associated with fear are similar to those that accompany excitement, joy, and other emotions (Nummenmaa et al., 2014). In other words, based on physiological responses alone, it may be difficult to distinguish between trembling with fear and quivering with excitement. Sometimes it’s a matter of interpretation and labeling. For example, researchers found that some successful athletes experiencing precompetition stress labeled their feelings in positive emotional terms (“I’m pumped and ready to go”), which helped their performance (Mallalieu etal., 2003). The same holds true for emotion interpretation before public speaking: Telling yourself “I am excited” rather than “Calm down” will generally lead to a more successful presentation (Brooks, 2013).

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

231

As the old adage goes, you may not be able to get rid of butterflies in your stomach, but you can get them to fly in formation. Some researchers have concluded that the experiences of fright, joy, or anger come primarily from the labels—and the accompanying cognitive interpretations—we give to our physical symptoms (Kagan, 2007). Psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1977) offers a good example of this principle: I notice I’m perspiring while lecturing. From that I infer I am nervous. If it occurs often, I might even label myself a “nervous person.” Once I have the label, the next question I must answer is “Why am I nervous?” Then I start to search for an appropriate explanation. I might notice some students leaving the room, or being inattentive. I am nervous because I’m not giving a good lecture. That makes me nervous. How do I know it’s not good? Because I’m boring my audience. I am nervous because I am a boring lecturer and I want to be a good lecturer. I feel inadequate. Maybe I should open a delicatessen instead. Just then a student says, “It’s hot in here, I’m perspiring and it makes it tough to concentrate on your lecture.” Instantly, I’m no longer “nervous” or “boring.” (p. 53)

Social scientists refer to this process as reappraisal—rethinking the meaning of emotionally charged events in ways that alter their emotional impact (Berger & Lee, 2011; Troy et al., 2013). Research shows that reappraisal is vastly superior to suppressing one’s feelings: It often leads to lower stress and increased productivity (Wallace etal., 2009). Reappraisal has both psychological and physiological benefits (Denson etal., 2011), regardless of a person’s age or culture (Goodman & Southam-Gerow, 2010; Haga etal., 2009). Reappraisal also has relational benefits (Jones etal., 2017). One study found that couples who regularly step back from their conflicts and reappraise them from a neutral perspective have higher levels of relational satisfaction (Finkel etal., 2013). In essence, these couples reduce the emotional impact of their disputes by looking at them rationally and dispassionately. (See the “Watch and Discuss” video referenced on this page.) We walk you through the reappraisal process later in this chapter when we describe how to dispute your irrational beliefs.

VERBAL EXPRESSION As you read in Chapter 6, nonverbal behavior is a powerful way of communicating emotion. But sometimes words are necessary to express feelings. Saying “I’m really angry” is clearer and more helpful than stomping out of the room, and “I’m feeling nervous” might help explain a pained expression on your face. Putting emotions into words can help you manage them more effectively (Lieberman et al., 2007), whereas leaving them unspoken can be personally and interpersonally harmful (Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017). Many researchers believe there are several “basic” or “primary” emotions (Katzir & Eyal, 2013; Phillips & Slessor, 2011). However, there isn’t total agreement among scholars about what those emotions are or

Watch and Discuss Look up and watch Eli Finkel’s TEDx Talk on “The Marriage Hack.” 1) Consider the role of reappraisal in the process he describes. 2) Discuss how you could use this “hack” to help manage conflicts with your loved ones.

232

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Annoyed

Angry

Pensive

Sad

Content

Happy

Anxious

Afraid

Liking

Loving

FIGURE 8.2 Intensity of Emotions

what makes them “basic” (Tracy & Randles, 2011). Moreover, emotions that are primary in one culture Furious may not be primary in others, and some emotions may have no equivalent in other cultures (Zhong et al., 2008). Despite this debate, most scholGrieving ars acknowledge that anger, joy, fear, sadness, and disgust are common and typical human emotions (Ekman,2016). We experience most emotions with different Ecstatic degrees of intensity—and we use specific emotion words to represent these differences. Figure 8.2 illustrates this point. To say you’re “annoyed” when Terrified a friend breaks an important promise, for example, would probably be an understatement. In other cases, people chronically overstate the strength of their feelings, saying that everything is either “wonAdoring derful” or “terrible.” The problem with this sort of exaggeration is that when a truly intense emotion comes along, there are no words left to describe it adequately. If chocolate chip cookies from the local bakery are “fantastic,” how does it feel to fall in love?

INFLUENCES ON E MOTIONAL EXPRESSION Each of us is born with the disposition to reveal our emotions, at least nonverbally. Babies smile, frown, giggle, and cry whenever the mood strikes them. But over time, a wide range of differences develops in emotional expression. In the next few pages, we look at some influences that shape how people communicate their feelings.

PERSONALITY Science has established an increasingly clear relationship between personality and the way people experience and communicate emotions (McCroskey etal., 2004). For example, extroverted people report more positive emotions in everyday life than more introverted individuals (Lucas etal., 2008). Conversely, people with neurotic personalities—those with a tendency to worry, be anxious, and feel apprehensive—report more negative emotions than less neurotic individuals. Although personality can be a powerful force, it doesn’t have to govern your communication satisfaction. For instance, people who are shy by nature can devise comfortable and effective strategies for r eaching out, such as making contact with others online (Yen etal., 2012). Online relationships shouldn’t be a way to avoid in-person communication (Ebeling-Witte etal., 2007), but they can be a rewarding way to gain confidence that will pay off in more satisfying face-to-face relationships.

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

233

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Managing Grief with Humor Grief is one of the most difficult emotions to bear, creating psychological and even physical pain. It can also strain relationships, in part because it’s hard to know how to comfort someone who’s mourning. Communication researcher Melanie Booth-Butterfield and her colleagues wanted to know if humor can play a role in coping with the anguish of grief. The researchers surveyed 484 people who had recently experienced the death of a loved one. The respondents answered questions about their sense of humor and emotional coping strategies. They also were asked about their use of humor during the bereavement process, as well as emotional and physical symptoms they experienced.

Results showed that humor can help people function more effectively during grieving. Those with a strong sense of humor reported fewer negative symptoms, as well as greater coping abilities. It’s noteworthy that men used humor more than women did during grieving, and that it benefited them more. Certainly there are inappropriate times and ways to use humor during bereavement. But the researchers concluded it can be healthy to crack a smile or enjoy a laugh during the grieving process. And if you’re supporting grieving friends or family, give them room to use levity as part of the process. It might be the best way to manage a profoundly difficult emotion.

Booth-Butterfield, M., Wanzer, M. B., Weil, N., & Krezmien, E. (2014). Communication of humor during bereavement: Intrapersonal and interpersonal emotion management strategies. Communication Quarterly, 62, 436-454.

CULTURE Although people around the world experience the same emotions, the same events can generate quite different feelings in different cultures. The notion of eating snails might bring a smile of delight to some residents of France, although it would cause many North Americans to grimace in disgust. Culture also has an effect on how emotions are valued. One study (Tsai et al., 2006) found that Asian Americans and Hong Kong Chinese value “low arousal positive affect” such as being calm, relaxed, and peaceful. European Americans, by contrast, tend to value “high arousal positive affect” such as excitement, enthusiasm, and elation. More specifically, communication researcher Christina Kotchemidova (2010) notes that the United States is known internationally as a “culture of cheerfulness.” She cites a Polish author who describes U.S. expressiveness this way: “Wow! Great! How nice! That’s fantastic! I had a terrific time! It was wonderful! Have a nice day! Americans. So damned cheerful” (p. 209). One of the most significant factors influencing emotional expression is the position of a culture on the individualism–collectivism spectrum (Halberstadt & Lozada, 2011). Members of collectivistic cultures, such as Japan and India, prize harmony among members of their “in-group” and discourage expression of any negative emotions that might upset relationships among people who belong to it. By contrast, members of highly individualistic cultures, such as the United States and Canada, feel comfortable revealing their feelings to people with whom they are close. Individualists

234

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

and collectivists also handle emotional expression with members of outgroups differently. Whereas individualists are quite frank about expressing negative emotions toward outsiders, collectivists are more likely to hide emotions such as disliking (Ting-Toomey, 2017). It’s easy to see how differences in display rules can lead to communication problems. For example, individualistic North Americans might view collectivistic Asians as less than candid, whereas people raised in Asia could easily regard North Americans as overly demonstrative. The phrase “I love you” offers an interesting case study of cultural differences in emotion expression. Researchers found that Americans say “I love you” more frequently (and to more people) than do members of most other cultures (Gareis & Wilkins, 2011). It’s not that love isn’t a universal experience; rather, there are significant cultural differences about when, where, how often, and with whom the phrase should be used. For instance, Middle Easterners in the study said that “I love you” should be expressed only between spouses, and they warned that American men who use the phrase cavalierly with Middle Eastern women might be misinterpreted as making a marriage proposal. They were not alone; study participants from a variety of backgrounds (e.g., Eastern Europe, India, Korea) said they use the phrase quite sparingly, believing that its power and meaning would be lost if used too often. However, one factor was consistent across cultures: Women tend to say “I love you” more often than men. For more examples of the effect that gender has on emotion expression, read on.

GENDER Even within a culture, gender roles often shape the ways in which men and women experience and express their emotions (Lee et al., 2013; Wester et al., 2002). For example, research suggests that women are faster than men at recognizing emotions from facial cues (Hampson etal., 2006); are better at identifying multiple emotions (Hall & Matsumoto, 2004); are better at judging emotions from eye behavior alone (Kirkland et al., 2013); and are more stimulated by emotional data and remember them better than men do (Spalek etal., 2015). Research on emotional expression suggests that there is also some truth in the cultural stereotype of the inexpressive male and the more demonstrative female. On the whole, women seem more likely than men to verbally and nonverbally express a wide range of feelings (Palomares, 2008). Men are more likely to experience what scholars call a lexithymia—a reluctance to talk about feelings, which can lead to relational challenges (Hesse et al., 2012, 2015). One study showed that fathers mask their emotions more than mothers do, which led their children to have more difficulty reading their fathers’ emotional expressions (Dunsmore etal.,2009).

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

Andsuppression of emotion by husbands is a strong predictor of dissatisfaction and discord in the early years of marriage (Velotti etal., 2016). It’s not surprising then that psychologists and social commentators recommend that boys and men be encouraged to express their feelings in open and constructive ways (Pollack, 2006; Reiner, 2016). The point is, although men and women generally experience the same emotions, there are some significant differences in the ways they read and express them (Brody & Hall, 2008). These differences are due in large measure to social conventions, which we discuss now.

SOCIAL CONVENTIONS AND ROLES In mainstream U.S. society, the unwritten rules of communication discourage the direct verbal expression of most emotions (Durik et al., 2006). Count the number of genuine emotional expressions you hear over a 2- or 3-day period (“I’m angry”; “I feel embarrassed”) and you’ll discover that such expressions are rare. People are generally comfortable making statements of fact and often delight in expressing their opinions, but they rarely disclose how they feel. They tend to act out rather than talk out their emotions. Not surprisingly, the emotions that people do share directly are usually positive (“I’m happy to say . . .”; “I really enjoyed . . .”). Scholars offer detailed descriptions of the ways contemporary society discourages expressions of anger. North Americans today strive to suppress this “unpleasant” emotion in almost every context, including child rearing, the workplace, and personal relationships (Kotchemidova, 2010). One study of married couples (Shimanoff, 1985) revealed that the partners shared complimentary feelings (“I love you”) or face-saving ones (“I’m sorry I yelled at you”). They also willingly disclosed both positive and negative feelings about absent third parties (“I like Fred”; “I’m uncomfortable around Gloria”). On the other hand, the spouses rarely verbalized face-threatening feelings (“I’m disappointed in you”) or hostility (“I’m mad at you”). This isn’t to suggest that restricting emotion expression is always a bad idea. Researchers use the term emotional labor to describe situations in which managing and even suppressing emotions are both appropriate and necessary (Butler & Modaff, 2012). Studies show that emotional labor is an important component of many if not most occupations (see the At Work box in this section for specific examples).

SOCIAL MEDIA Communicators generally express more emotion online than they do in person (Derks etal., 2008). In some cases, that’s good news. Those who have trouble sharing feelings face to face may find a freedom to do so behind the safety of a keyboard or touchscreen. Consider how it might be easier to type, rather than say, the words “I’m embarrassed” or “I love you.”

235

236

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

@work

Emotional Labor on the Job

The rules for expressing emotions in the workplace are clearly different from those in personal life. In intimate relationships (at least in mainstream Western culture), it’s often important to tell friends, family, and loved ones how you feel. In the workplace, however, it can be just as important to conceal emotions for the sake of clients, customers, coworkers, and supervisors—and also to protect your job. Emotional labor—the process of managing and sometimes suppressing emotions—has been studied in a variety of occupational contexts. Here are a few examples: • If firefighters don’t mask their emotions of fear, disgust, and stress, it impedes their ability to help the people whose lives they are trying to save. Emotion-management training is therefore vital for new firefighters (Scott & Myers,2005). • Correctional officers at two minimum- security prisons described the challenge of needing to be “warm, nurturing, and respectful” to inmates while also being “suspicious, strong, and tough.” The officers acknowledged that it’s taxing to manage competing emotions and juggle conflicting demands (Tracy, 2005).

• Money is an emotion-laden topic, which means that financial planners often engage in emotional labor. Researchers concluded that “relationships and communication with clients may indeed be more central to the work of financial planners than portfolio performance reports and changes in estate tax laws” (Miller & Kiersten, 2008, p. 23). Whereas some of these occupations deal with life-and-death situations, emotion management is equally important in less intensive jobs (Eschenfelder, 2012; Sanders, 2013). For instance, most customer-service positions require working with people who may express their dissatisfaction in angry and inappropriate ways (“I hate this store—I’m never shopping here again!”). In situations such as these, it’s usually unwise to “fight fire with fire,” even if that’s your natural impulse. Instead, competent on-the-job communicators can use the listening, conflict-management, and defense-reducing skills described in Chapters 7, 11, and 12. It’s not always easy to manage emotions, especially when you’re feeling fearful, stressed, angry, or defensive. Nevertheless, doing the work of emotional labor is often vital for success on thejob.

Unfortunately, as discussed in Chapter 1, online disinhibition can also encourage emotional outbursts and tirades. This kind of venting can be hazardous to interpersonal relations, and it probably won’t make you feel better (see the Focus on Research box on page 233). Social media can also feed emotional responses. For instance, regularly checking a romantic partner’s Facebook site may spur feelings of jealousy, resulting in relational dissatisfaction (Dainton & Stokes, 2015). Jealousy resulting from social media posts is especially strong when the viewer is already suspicious, and more so for women than men (Muise etal., 2014). And Snapchat can elicit even more jealousy than Facebook, because it’s often used for flirting and finding new love interests (Utz etal., 2015).

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

The bottom line is that both senders and receivers experience emotions more intensely online. It’s wise to keep this in mind before hitting “send” on emotionally charged messages and before jumping to conclusions about ambiguous online information.

EMOTIONAL CONTAGION Emotions can spread from one person to another through a process known as emotional contagion (Dasborough etal., 2009). As Daniel Goleman (1995, p. 115) observes, “We catch feelings from one another as though they were some kind of social virus.” There is evidence this contagion happens between students and teachers (Bakker, 2005), customers and employees (Jiangang et al., 2011), and husbands and wives ( R andall et al., 2013). You can probably recall instances in which being around a calm person left you feeling more at peace, or when your previously sunny mood was spoiled by contact with a grouch. That’s the power of emotional contagion. This process can take place online as well as in person. In an analysis of millions of status updates on Facebook, researchers found that posts about rain—which typically correlate with negative moods— can have a ripple effect on readers (Coviello et al., 2014). Those exposed to their friends’ rainy-day messages began posting more emotionally negative updates, even if it wasn’t raining in their area. The good news is that positive posts are contagious too—at even greater rates. The researchers found that every positive status update led to 1.75 new positive posts by followers. Twitter updates can have similar effects (Ferrara & Yang, 2015). It’s important to recognize that communicating your emotional state—even online with people who may not know you well—can have an impact on the feelings and moods of others. And if checking others’ posts leaves you feeling anxious and depressed (Lin et al., 2016), it might be a good time to take a break from social media.

237

DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION

Fictional Characters, Real Feelings: Parasocial Relationships The Season 7 premiere of The Walking Dead depicted grisly killings of two key characters. TV Guide said the deaths “left fans traumatized” (Mathews, 2016), and the Twittersphere agreed: “My heart broke in a million pieces” “It has been a very depressing and emotional night” “Sorry boss, I can’t come in to work—I’ve had twodeaths in the family” Comments like these illustrate that viewers can grow to care deeply about characters in TV, films, and other media. Scholars use the term parasocial relationships to describe enduring, one-sided bonds that fans develop as they follow media characters (Rosaen & Dibble, 2016). There are virtues in having emotional reactions to what happens even to fictional characters. These reactions demonstrate that viewers aren’t heartless; that they have empathy and compassion. Shared emotions can also create a sense of community among fans of a show, many of whom commiserate together on social media. And of course, a TV series must be compelling to evoke such strong responses from its viewers. Virtues notwithstanding, there’s a point when being emotionally wrapped up in the lives of fictional characters becomes a problem. Thisonesided sense of intimacy is experienced more intensely by those who are lonely, have social anxiety, and have unmet belonging needs (Greenwood & Long, 2011). In other words, imagined relationships may be a means of compensating for a lack of genuine human connection. And overinvestment in fictional worlds can sap time and energy from everyday life (Bigelsen & Kelley, 2015). No one is suggesting it’s a bad thing to care about fictional characters. But it might be wise to consider whether your emotional needs are being met in authentic relationships.

238

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

EXPRESSING EMOTIONS EFFECTIVELY A wide range of research supports the value of expressing emotions appropriately. Starting at a young age, the way parents talk to their children about emotions has a powerful effect on development. John Gottman and his associates (1997) identified two distinct parenting styles: “emotion coaching” and “emotion dismissing.” The research shows how the coaching approach gives children life skills for communicating about feelings, leading to much more satisfying relationships. In fact, children who grow up in families where parents dismiss emotions are at higher risk for behavior problems than those who are raised in families that practice emotion coaching (Young, 2009). At the most basic physiological level, people who know how to share their feelings appropriately are healthier than those who don’t. Inexpressive people—those who avoid their feelings and impulses and deny distress—are more likely to suffer from a host of medical ailments (Quartana & Burns, 2010). However, people who are overly expressive also suffer physiologically. When people lash out, their blood pressure jumps an average of 20 points—in some by as many as 100 (Siegman & Snow, 1997). One key to health, then, is to learn how to express emotions constructively. The suggestions that follow can help you decide when and how to express your emotions. Combined with the guidelines for self-disclosure in Chapter 3, they can improve the effectiveness of your emotional expression.

RECOGNIZE YOUR FEELINGS Answering the question “How do you feel?” isn’t as easy for some people as for others (Peper, 2000). Communication researchers Melanie Booth- Butterfield and Steven Booth-Butterfield (1998; see also Samter & Burleson, 2005) found that some people (whom they term “affectively oriented”) are much more aware of their own emotional states. Such affectively oriented people use this awareness when making important decisions. By contrast, people with a low affective orientation are usually unaware of their emotions and tend to regard feelings as useless, unimportant information. The researchers summarize studies showing a relationship between awareness of feelings and a wide range of valuable traits, including positive relationships between parents and children, the ability to comfort others, sensitivity to nonverbal cues, and even skillful use of humor. In other words, being aware of one’s feelings is an important ingredient in skillful communication. Beyond being aware of one’s feelings, research shows that it’s valuable to be able to specifically identify one’s emotions. Teaching children to recognize and label their emotions (“Are you mad or sad?”) is foundational to building their emotional intelligence (David, 2016). College students who could pinpoint the negative emotions they experienced (such as “nervous,” “angry,” “sad,” “ashamed,” and “guilty”) also had the best

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

239

strategies for managing those emotions (Barrett etal., 2001). As you read earlier in this chapter, there are a number of ways in which feelings become recognizable. Physiological changes can be a clear sign of your emotional state. Monitoring nonverbal behaviors is another excellent way to keep in touch with your feelings. You can also recognize your emotions by monitoring your thoughts as well as the verbal messages you send to others. It’s not far from stating “I hate this!” to realizing that you’re angry (or bored, nervous, or embarrassed).

CHOOSE THE BEST LANGUAGE Most people suffer from impoverished emotional vocabularies. Ask them how they’re feeling and the response will almost always include the same terms: good or bad, terrible or great, and so on. Take a moment now and see how many feelings you can write down. After you’ve done your best, look at Table 8.1 on page 240 and see which ones you’ve missed from this admittedly incomplete list. Many communicators think they are expressing feelings when, in fact, their statements are emotionally counterfeit. For example, it sounds emotionally revealing to say “I feel like going to a Life is an emotional roller coaster for Nadine Byrd (Hailee show” or “I feel we’ve been seeing too much of each Steinfeld) in the coming-of-age film The Edge of Seventeen. other.” But in fact, neither of these statements has She finds it challenging to manage her emotions and communicate them effectively. What role does age play in your any emotional content. In the first sentence, the ability to identify and express emotions? word feel really stands for an intention: “I want to go to a show.” In the second sentence, the “feeling” is really a thought: “I think we’ve been seeing too much of each other.” You can recognize the absence of emotion in each case by adding a genuine word of feeling to it. For instance, “I’m bored and I want to go to a show” or “I think we’ve been seeing too much of each other and I feel confined.” Relying on a small vocabulary of feelings is as limiting as using only a few terms to describe colors. To say that the ocean in all its moods, the sky as it varies from day to day, and the color of your true love’s eyes are all “blue” only tells a fraction of the story. Likewise, it’s overly broad to use a term such as good or great to describe how you feel in situations as different as earning a high grade, finishing a marathon, and hearing the words “I love you” from a special person. Bradberry (2015) found that one sign of emotional intelligence is having a “robust emotional vocabulary”: While many people might describe themselves as simply feeling “bad,” emotionally intelligent people can pinpoint whether they feel

240

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

TABLE 8.1

Descriptive Terms for Emotions

Affectionate

Foolish

Preoccupied

Afraid

Forlorn

Pressured

Aggravated

Frustrated

Quiet

Amazed

Furious

Regretful

Ambivalent

Glad

Relieved

Angry

Glum

Remorseful

Annoyed

Grateful

Repulsed

Anxious

Guilty

Resentful

Apathetic

Happy

Restless

Ashamed

Hateful

Sad

Bashful

Helpless

Secure

Bewildered

Hopeful

Sentimental

Bored

Hopeless

Sexy

Calm

Horrible

Shaky

Comfortable

Hurt

Shocked

Concerned

Hyper

Shy

Confident

Impatient

Silly

Confused

Inhibited

Smug

Content

Insecure

Sorry

Curious

Irritable

Stubborn

Defensive

Isolated

Stupid

Delighted

Jealous

Subdued

Depressed

Joyful

Surprised

Desperate

Lazy

Suspicious

Detached

Lonely

Sympathetic

Devastated

Lovestruck

Tense

Disappointed

Loving

Terrified

Disgusted

Mad

Tired

Disturbed

Mean

Touchy

Eager

Melancholy

Trapped

Ecstatic

Miserable

Uneasy

Edgy

Mortified

Unsure

Elated

Nervous

Useless

Embarrassed

Overwhelmed

Vulnerable

Empty

Passionate

Wacky

Enthusiastic

Peaceful

Warm

Excited

Pessimistic

Weak

Exhausted

Playful

Weary

Exhilarated

Pleased

Worried

Fidgety

Possessive

Zany

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

241

“irritable,” “frustrated,” “downtrodden,” or “anxious.” The more specific your word choice, the better insight you have into exactly how you are feeling, what caused it, and what you should do about it.

There are several ways to express a feeling verbally: • Through single words: “I’m angry” (or “excited,” “depressed,” “curious,” and so on). • By describing what’s happening to you metaphorically: “My stomach is tied in knots”; “I’m on top of the world.” • By describing what you’d like to do: “I want to run away”; “I’d like to give you a hug.” Finally, you can improve emotional expression by making it clear that your feeling is centered on a specific set of circumstances rather than the whole relationship. Instead of saying “I resent you,” say “I get resentful when you don’t keep your promises.” Rather than “I’m bored with you,” say “I get bored when you talk about money.”

SHARE MULTIPLE FEELINGS Many times the feeling you express isn’t the only one you’re experiencing. For example, you might often express your anger but overlook the confusion, disappointment, frustration, sadness, or embarrassment that preceded or accompanies it. To understand the importance of expressing multiple emotions, consider the following examples. For each one, ask yourself two questions: How would I feel? What feelings might I express? • An out-of-town friend has promised to arrive at your house at six o’clock. When your guest hasn’t arrived by nine o’clock, you are convinced that a terrible accident has occurred. Just as you pick up the phone to call the police and local hospitals, your friend breezes in the door with an offhand remark about getting a late start. • A friend has posted a photo of you online, along with a positive message. On one hand, you’re flattered by the display of affection. On the other hand, it’s a picture that doesn’t paint you in the best light. You wish the friend had asked first. In situations such as these you would probably feel several emotions. Consider the case of the overdue friend. Your first reaction to his arrival would probably be relief—“Thank goodness, he’s safe!” But you would also be likely to feel anger—“Why didn’t he text or call to tell me he’d be late?” The second example would probably leave you feeling pleased, embarrassed, and angry—all at the same time. Despite it being commonplace to experience several emotions at the same time (Carofiglio etal., 2008), we often communicate only one feeling—usually, the most negative one. In both of the preceding examples you might show only your anger, leaving the other person with little idea of

It’s common to experience more than one emotion at the same time. Recall an important time when you felt multiple emotions. What value would have been added if you had shared them all?

242

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

the full range of your feelings. Consider the different reaction you would get by describing all your emotions in such situations.

RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FEELING AND ACTING Just because you feel a certain way doesn’t mean you must always act on it. In fact, there is compelling evidence that people who act out angry feelings—even by hitting an inanimate punching bag—actually feel worse than those who experience anger without lashing out (Bushman et al., 1999; Lerner, 2005). Posting your frustration on online “rant sites” doesn’t help, either (Martin etal., 2013). More to the point of this book, researchers have discovered that people who deal with negative feelings by venting them indiscriminately have above-average levels of anxiety in their interpersonal relationships (Jerome & Liss, 2005). Getting in touch with certain emotions does not commit you to a course of action, but it can help you decide how best to act. If, for instance, you think, “I’m so nervous about the interview that I want to cancel it and pretend that I’m sick,” it becomes possible to explore why you feel so anxious and then work to remedy the problem. Pretending that nothing is the matter, on the other hand, will do nothing to diminish your anxiety, which can then block your chances for success.

ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR FEELINGS People don’t make us like or dislike them, and believing that they do denies the responsibility each of us has for our own emotions. It’s important to make sure that your emotional expressions don’t blame others for the way you feel (Bippus & Young, 2005; Oatley, 2010). The “I” language described in Chapter 5 makes it clear that you own your feelings. For example, instead of saying “You’re making me angry,” it’s more accurate to say, “I’m feeling angry.” Instead of “You hurt my feelings,” a more responsible statement is, “I feel hurt when you do that.”

CHOOSE THE BEST TIME AND PLACE TO EXPRESS YOUR FEELINGS Often the first flush of a strong feeling is not the best time to speak out. If you’re awakened by the racket caused by a noisy neighbor, storming over to complain might result in your saying things you’ll regret later. In such a case, it’s probably wiser to wait until you have thought out carefully how you might express your feelings in a way that would be most likely to beheard. Even after you’ve waited for your initial emotion to subside, it’s still important to choose the time that’s best suited to the message. Being rushed or tired or disturbed by some other matter is probably a good reason for postponing the expression of your feeling. In the same manner, you ought to be sure that the recipient of your message is ready to hear you out before you begin. Sometimes that means checking the other person’s

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

243

A S S E S S I N G YO U R CO M M U N I C AT I O N

Your Emotional Intelligence To what extent is each of the following items true for you? Rate each one on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1= “very seldom true of me” and 5 = “very often true of me.”

______ 1. It’s hard for me to understand my feelings. ______ 2. I have trouble understanding how others feel. ______ 3. I don’t fantasize or daydream. ______ 4. I find it hard to control my impulses. ______ 5. I have difficulty expressing my feelings. ______ 6. I’m good at understanding how others feel. ______ 7. When I’m in a difficult situation, I collect information. ______ 8. I tend to be impatient. ______ 9. It’s hard for me to describe my feelings. ______ 10. I’m sensitive to others’ feelings. ______ 11. I stop and think before solving problems. ______ 12. I find it hard to control my anxiety. This assessment, based on adaptations of 12 of the 35 items of the original measure, is from Parker, J. A., Keefer, K. V., & Wood, L. M. (2011). Toward a brief multidimensional assessment of emotional intelligence: Psychometric properties of the Emotional Quotient Inventory–Short Form. Psychological Assessment, 23, 762–777.

For scoring information, see page 257 at the end of the chapter.

mood before you start sharing emotions. In other cases, it’s about calculating whether that person is ready to hear sentiments such as “I love you.” But don’t put off expressing emotions too long. It turns out that the old adage, “Never go to bed angry,” has scientific validity (Hicks & Diamond, 2011). Interpersonal conflict between couples that’s left unresolved overnight leads to poor sleep patterns, which can cause a variety of health problems. There are also cases in which you may choose never to express your feelings. Even if you’re dying to tell an instructor that her lectures leave you bored to a stupor, you might decide it’s best to answer her question “How’s class going?” with an innocuous “Okay.” And even though you may be irritated by an arrogant police officer who stops you for speeding, the smartest approach might be to keep your feelings to yourself.

244

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

When you experience strong emotions but don’t want to share them verbally (for whatever reason), writing out your feelings and thoughts has been shown to have mental, physical, and emotional benefits (Burton & King, 2008; Pennebaker, 2004). Putting your feelings into words—even if no one reads them—has therapeutic value (Wilson, 2011). This demonstrates once again the link between emotions and communication. The cognitive process of turning feelings into language helps manage theemotions.

MANAGING EMOTIONS The preceding section described how to express your emotions constructively. But there will probably be times when you decide it’s best to keep your feelings to yourself. For example, imagine that during class your professor makes an offhand comment that leaves you feeling embarrassed. You might not be comfortable saying “That hurt my feelings.” Likewise, in a job interview, you probably wouldn’t do yourself any favors by confessing your nervousness. The following sections describe how to manage your emotions intrapersonally—that is, through your own thought process. The starting point is learning to differentiate beneficial emotions from the less helpful kind.

FACILITATIVE AND DEBILITATIVE EMOTIONS Not all emotions are beneficial. For instance, depression, terror, and irrational guilt do little to help you feel better or improve your relationships. It’s important to distinguish facilitative emotions, which contribute to effective functioning, from debilitative emotions, which hinder or prevent effective performance. Positive emotions such as joy and love are obviously facilitative. Much of the time, emotions such as anger or fear are debilitative. Some unpleasant emotions can be useful if they aren’t too intense. For instance, a certain amount of anger or irritation can be constructive if it motivates you to make a bad situation better. But when anger turns to rage, things usually turn out badly. The same is true for fear. A little bit of nervousness before a job interview may boost you just enough to improve your performance (mellow athletes or actors usually don’t do well), but a job candidate who is inordinately anxious isn’t likely to impress potential employers (Ayres & Crosby, 1995). One big difference, then, between facilitative and debilitative emotions is their intensity. A second characteristic of debilitative feelings is their extended duration. Feeling sad after the breakup of a relationship or the loss of a job is to be expected. Yet spending the rest of one’s life grieving over the loss accomplishes nothing. In the same way, staying angry at someone for a wrong inflicted long ago can be just as punishing to the grudge holder as to the wrongdoer (Bushman et al., 2005). Social scientists call this rumination—recurrent thoughts not demanded by the immediate environment. A substantial body of research confirms that rumination increases feelings of sadness, anxiety,

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

245

and depression and makes them last longer (Verduyn&Lavrijsen, 2015). Jealousy and rumination are a particularly bad mix (Elphinston etal., 2013), often leading to unhealthy relational behaviors such as surveillance and stalking.

THOUGHTS CAUSE FEELINGS How can you minimize debilitative feelings? One way is known as the rational-emotive approach (Ellis & Ellis, 2014). This method is based on the idea that the key to changing feelings is to change unproductive cognitive interpretations. Emotions might seem to have a life of their William Shakespeare wrote, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” How do your thoughts own. People wish they could feel calm when ap- shape your emotions? How do your emotions shape your proaching strangers, yet their voices quiver. They communication? try to appear confident when asking for a raise, but their eyes twitch nervously. Many people would say that the strangers or the boss makes them feel nervous, just as they would say that a bee sting causes them to feel pain: Activating Event

Consequence

bee sting

physical pain

meeting strangers

nervous feelings

When looking at emotions in this way, people may believe they have little control over how they feel. However, the causal relationship between activating events and emotional discomfort (or pleasure) isn’t as great as it seems. Cognitive psychologists and therapists argue that it is not events, such as meeting strangers or being jilted by a lover, that cause people to feel poorly but rather the beliefs they hold about these events. Consider this example to understand how thoughts cause feelings. Imagine you start receiving a string of angry, insulting messages from a friend. Under the circumstances, it’s likely that you would feel hurt and upset. Now imagine that, after receiving the offensive messages, you learn that your friend had been hospitalized for mental illness. In this case, your reaction would probably be quite different. Most likely, you’d feel sorrow and compassion, and possibly embarrassment for ever imagining a good friend would turn against you so quickly and for no apparentreason. In this story, the activating event—being called names—was the same in both cases, yet the emotional consequences were very different. The reason for different feelings has to do with the pattern of thinking in each case. In the first instance, you would most likely think that your friend was angry with you and that you must have done something terrible to deserve such a response. In the second case, you would probably feel sympathetic given that your friend had experienced some psychological difficulty.

246

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Thisexample illustrates that people’s interpretations of events determine their feelings: Activating Event

Thought or Belief

Consequences

being called names

“I’ve done something wrong.”

hurt, upset

being called names

“My friend must be sick.”

pity, sympathy

The same principle applies in more common situations. For example, the words “I love you” can be interpreted in a variety of ways. They could be taken at face value as a genuine expression of deep affection. They might also be decoded in a variety of other ways: for example, as an attempt at manipulation; a sincere but mistaken declaration uttered in a moment of passion; or an attempt to make the recipient feel better. It’s easy to imagine how different interpretations of a statement such as “I love you” can lead to different emotional reactions: Event

Thought

Feeling

hearing “I love you”

“This is a genuine statement.”

delight (perhaps)

hearing “I love you”

“She’s (he’s) just saying this to manipulate me.”

anger

The key, then, to understanding and changing feelings lies in reappraising the event. This takes place through a form of intrapersonal communication professionals label self-talk (Fernyhough, 2016; Van Raalte etal., 2016)—the nonvocal, internal monologue that is our process ofthinking. To understand how self-talk works, pay attention to the part of you that, like a little voice, whispers in your ear. Take a moment now and listen to what the voice is saying. Did you hear the voice? It was quite possibly saying “What little voice? I don’t hear any voices!” This little voice talks to you almost constantly:

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

247

“I wonder when he’s going to stop talking.” “I’d better get moving or I’m going to be late.” “How rude of her to cut in line!” At work or at play, while browsing the web or brushing our teeth, we all tend to talk to ourselves. This thinking voice rarely stops. It may fall silent for a while when you’re meditating or concentrating on a task, but most of the time it rattles on. Let’s look now at how that voice sometimes processes thoughts in ways that need reappraising.

IRRATIONAL THINKING AND DEBILITATIVEEMOTIONS

Irrational thinking can lead to personal and interpersonal dif-

This process of self-talk is essential to understand- ficulties. Which fallacies described in this section affect your ing the debilitative feelings that interfere with ef- emotional state? How might you think more rationally? fective communication (E. D. Cohen, 2007). Many debilitative feelings come from accepting a number of irrational thoughts— we call them fallacies here—that lead to illogical conclusions and, in turn, to debilitating feelings (Samar etal., 2013). We usually aren’t aware of these thoughts, which makes them especially powerful.

The Fallacy of Perfection People who accept the fallacy of perfection believe that a worthwhile communicator should be able to handle any situation with complete confidence and skill. Although such a standard of perfection can serve as a goal and a source of inspiration (rather like making a hole in one for a golfer), it’s unrealistic to expect that you can reach or maintain this level of behavior. The truth is, people simply aren’t perfect. People who believe that it’s desirable and possible to be a perfect communicator come to think that people won’t appreciate them if they are imperfect. Admitting mistakes, saying “I don’t know,” or sharing feelings of uncertainty or discomfort thus seem to be social defects. But we know that’s not accurate, because most of us don’t like being around know-it-alls who never acknowledge they’re fallible. You become more liberated each time you comfortably accept the idea that you are not perfect. Saying to yourself, “I made a mistake—I’m a failure” will likely lead to debilitative emotions. Replacing that with, “Imade a mistake—I guess I’m human, and I learned something from it” is far morefacilitating.

The Fallacy of Approval Another mistaken belief is based on the idea that it is vital—not just desirable—to obtain everyone’s approval. Communicators who subscribe to the fallacy of approval go to incredible lengths to seek acceptance from others, even to the extent of sacrificing their own principles and happiness. Adherence to this irrational myth can lead to some ludicrous situations, such as feeling nervous because people you really don’t like seem to disapprove of you, or feeling apologetic when you are not at fault.

248

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Consider how some self-talk is rooted in the fallacy of approval, and how realistic alternatives can lead to more facilitative emotions: Fallacious approval seeking: “If I speak up about those racist jokes, they probably will think I’m hung up on political correctness.”

Rational: “I hope they won’t think I’m overly P.C. But I’d rather speak up than compromise my beliefs.”

Fallacious approval seeking: “If I confront my teammate about not doing his share, he’ll probably get defensive.”

Rational: “There’s a chance my teammate will get defensive—but I’d rather deal with that than keep quiet and feel resentful.”

Don’t misunderstand: Abandoning the fallacy of approval doesn’t mean living a life of selfishness. It’s still important to consider the needs of others. It’s also pleasant—one might even say necessary—to strive for the respect of certain people. The point is that if you must abandon your own needs and principles to gain this acceptance, the price is too high.

The Fallacy of Should One source of unhappiness is the inability to distinguish between what is and what should be, or the fallacy of should. For instance, imagine a person who is full of complaints about the world: “There should be no rain on weekends.” “Money should grow on trees.” “We should all be able to fly.” Beliefs like these are obviously foolish. But we hold those kinds of expectations for others all the time: “He shouldn’t be so inconsiderate.” “She should stand up for herself.” “They should work harder.” We also hold expectations for ourselves. Read these aloud and consider how you feel about them (your tone of voice will give you a clue): “I should be more outgoing.” “I should be nicer to my family.” “I should be a better team player.” Even when they’re true, “shoulds” generate a lot of emotional baggage. Rather than expecting others to behave the way you think they should and feeling disappointed when they don’t meet that standard, it’s more realistic to think, “I wish she (he) would behave the way I want—but maybe I’m being unrealistic to expect better behavior.”

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

The same principle applies to self-imposed resolutions: They can be unrealistic and create more problems than they solve. It can be more productive to set goals rather than dwell on self-criticism. Consider these alternatives to the list above: “I wish I were more extroverted, but I’m not. I will do the best I can without being a phony.” “I’m going to start being nicer to my family.” “I’ll resist being selfish and work on being a better team player.”

The Fallacy of Overgeneralization The fallacy of overgeneralization occurs when a person bases a belief on a limited amount of evidence. Consider the following statements: “I blanked during that speech. I’m so stupid!” “Some friend I am! I forgot my best friend’s birthday.” These examples focus on a single shortcoming as if it represents e verything. It’s more rational and less punishing to avoid overgeneralizing. A single memory lapse can be the exception rather than the rule, and forgetting one event doesn’t make you a bad friend. A second, related category of overgeneralization occurs when we exaggerate shortcomings: “She never listens to me.” “He’s always criticizing me.” “I can’t think of anything.” On closer examination, such absolute statements are almost always false and usually lead to discouragement or anger. It’s better to replace overgeneralizations with more accurate messages, which are likely to generate less negative feelings: “She sometimes doesn’t hear me out.” “He’s been critical three times I can remember this week.” “I haven’t had any ideas I like today.”

The Fallacy of Causation People who live their lives in accordance with the fallacy of causation believe they should do nothing that can hurt or in any way inconvenience others because it will cause undesirable feelings. For example, you might not tell your family members that they’ve interrupted you several times because you don’t want to make them angry. Similarly, it might be tempting to avoid bringing up issues with friends and coworkers because you don’t want to cause a negative reaction. A reluctance to speak out in such situations often results from assuming that one person can cause another’s emotions—that others, for example, are responsible for your feeling disappointed, confused, or irritated; or that you are responsible for others feeling hurt, angry, or upset. Actually, this assumption is incorrect. We may act in provocative ways, but each person is responsible for the way he or she reacts. In the same way, it’s not accurate to say that people make you angry, upset, or even happy. Behavior that upsets or pleases one person might not

249

250

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

bring out any reaction from another. If you doubt this fact, think about people you know who respond differently to the same behaviors that you find so bothersome. (You may scream “Idiot!” when you’re driving and someone switches lanes in front of you without signaling, whereas the person with you in the car may not even notice or may notice but not care.) The contrast between others’ reactions and yours shows that responses are determined more by our own temperament and thinking than by others’ behavior. One way to avoid the debilitative feelings that often accompany the fallacy of causation is to use responsible language, as discussed in Chapter5. Instead of saying “He makes me so angry,” reframe it as your reaction to the other person’s behavior: “I don’t like when he talks about me behind my back.” Instead of saying, “I had to visit my parents this weekend; they gave me no option,” take responsibility for your choices: “I decided to visit my parents this weekend, but I may choose differently next time.” Taking ownership for your actions and reactions can often lead to a sense of empowerment.

The Fallacy of Helplessness The fallacy of helplessness suggests that forces beyond our control determine satisfaction in life. People with this outlook continually see themselves as victims: “There’s no way I can get ahead in this society. The best thing I can do is to accept it.” “I was born with a shy personality. I’d like to be more outgoing, but there’s nothing I can do about that.” “I can’t tell my boss that she is putting too many demands on me. If Idid, I might lose my job.” The error in such statements becomes apparent once you realize that few paths are completely closed. Many difficulties a person claims can’t be solved do have solutions; the task is to discover those solutions and to work diligently at applying them. Changing your self-talk can help you see some of those choices and feel more positive about pursuing them: “It’s an uphill battle in this society, but I will do my best to bring about change.” “I tend to be shy around strangers, but I’m going to introduce myself to someone I don’t know at tonight’s party.” “It won’t be pleasant to confront my boss, but I can do it.” Even if you simply change “I can’t tell my boss” to “I won’t tell my boss,” you’ll at least be aware of the choice you’re making and probably feel lesshelpless.

The Fallacy of Catastrophic Expectations Subscribing to the fallacy of helplessness can become a selffulfilling prophecy. Do you ever mistakenly believe that it’s beyond your control to change unsatisfying relationships? How might you dispute this belief and take charge of the situation?

Some fearful people operate on the assumption that if something bad can happen, it probably will. This is the fallacy of catastrophic expectations—a position similar to Murphy’s Law. These statements are typical of such anattitude: “If I invite them to the party, they probably won’t want to come.” “If I speak up to try to resolve a conflict, things will probably get worse.” “If I apply for the job I want, I probably won’t be hired.” “If I tell them how I really feel, they’ll probably just laugh at me.”

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

Once you start imagining terrible consequences, a self-fulfilling prophecy can be set in motion. One study revealed that people who believed that their romantic partners would not change for the better were likely to behave in ways that contributed to the breakup of the relationship (Metts & Cupach, 1990). And people who have a “pessimism bias” often perceive threats in their relationships that are not apparent to outsiders, leading to relational dissatisfaction (Knobloch etal., 2007). If this is a fallacy that plagues you, it’s best to shift your internal language from “I fear the worst” to “I’ll hope for the best.” Although it’s easy to understand the personal benefits of reducing debilitative emotions, it’s important to remember the interpersonal reasons for doing so. Simply put, relationships function better when the people involved manage their emotions (English et al., 2013; Knobloch & Metts, 2013). This obviously doesn’t mean stifling feelings—quite the contrary. Emotion management involves self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and the kind of reappraisal we’re about to discuss. Communicators who manage their emotions are able to express them in productive ways with their partners, and that helps maintain relationships. With that in mind, we look at how to reduce debilitative emotions that are generally counterproductive to personal and interpersonal health.

MINIMIZING DEBILITATIVE EMOTIONS Now you’re ready to put into practice the rational-emotive process and self-talk. When practiced conscientiously, they can help you cut down on the self-defeating thinking that leads to many debilitative emotions.

Monitor Your Emotional Reactions The first step is to recognize when you’re having debilitative emotions. As we suggested earlier, one way to notice feelings is through physical stimuli: butterflies in the stomach, racing heart, sweating, and so on. Although such reactions might be symptoms of food poisoning, more often they reflect a strong emotion. You also can recognize certain ways of behaving that suggest your feelings: stomping instead of walking normally, being unusually quiet, and speaking in a sarcastic tone of voice are some examples. It may seem strange to suggest that it’s necessary to look for emotions— they ought to be immediately apparent. However, the fact is that we often suffer from debilitative feelings for some time without noticing them. For example, at the end of a trying day, you’ve probably caught yourself frowning and realized that you’ve been wearing that face for some time without knowing it. Remember the two key characteristics of debilitating emotions— intensity (they are too intense) and duration (they last too long)—and use those to guide your assessment.

Note the Activating Event Once you’re aware of how you’re feeling, the next step is to figure out what activating event triggered your response. Sometimes it is obvious. If your romantic partner keeps calling you by the name of a former lover, you’re likely to become upset. Research shows that dating couples can develop “social allergies” to each other, becoming hypersensitive about

251

252

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

When Talking About Feelings Makes Things Worse Cancer patients and their partners are typically coached to talk about their feelings—openly, honestly, and regularly. The assumption is that disclosing difficult emotions with loved ones is always good for all parties involved. Communication scholar Daena Goldsmith believes such prescriptions may be unduly influenced by an “ideology of openness” (Goldsmith & Domann-Scholz, 2013). She and colleague Gregory Miller interviewed couples coping with cancer to learn more about their communication patterns—and what the partners found helpful. Contrary to popular advice, participants who regularly talked about feelings reported more distress and poorer quality of life and functioning. This

was particularly true for partners in differing emotional states (e.g., one worried, one calm) or with differing communication styles (one expressive, one reserved). Couples said that sometimes the best way to manage their emotions was to focus instead on discussing facts, solving problems, or engaging in humor. In other words, diversion can trump disclosure when emotions run high. The researchers believe that communicators in challenging situations need a more nuanced prescription than simply “open up and share your feelings.” Their approach is consistent with that of Chapter 1: Competent communication requires adaptability and flexibility.

Goldsmith, D. J., & Miller, G. A. (2015). Should I tell you how I feel? A mixed method analysis of couples’ talk about cancer. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43, 273–293.

their partner’s annoying behaviors (Cunningham et al., 2005). In these cases, it’s easy to identify what triggers a given response. In other cases, however, the activating event isn’t so apparent. Sometimes there isn’t a single activating event but rather a series of small incidents that finally build toward a critical mass and trigger a debilitative feeling. This sort of thing happens when someone teases you over and over about the same thing, or when you suffer a series of small disappointments. The best way to begin tracking down activating events is to notice the circumstances in which you have debilitative feelings. Perhaps they occur when you’re around specific people. For example, you may feel tense or angry every time you encounter a person with whom you have struggled in the past. Until those issues are dealt with, feelings about past events can trigger debilitative emotions, even in apparently innocuous situations. In other cases, you might discover that being around certain types of individuals triggers debilitative emotions. For instance, you might become nervous around people who seem more intelligent or self-confident than you are. In other cases, certain settings can stimulate unpleasant emotions: parties, work, school. Sometimes the topic of conversation is the factor that sets you off, whether politics, religion, sex, or some other subject.

Record Your Self-Talk This is the point at which you analyze the thoughts that are the link between the activating event and your feelings. If you’re serious about getting

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

rid of debilitative emotions, it’s important to actually write down your self-talk when first learning to use this method. Putting your thoughts on paper will help you see whether they make any sense. Monitoring your self-talk might be difficult at first. This is a new skill, and any new activity seems awkward. If you persevere, however, you’ll find you will be able to identify the thoughts that lead to your debilitative feelings. Once you get in the habit of recognizing this internal monologue, you’ll be able to identify your thoughts quickly and easily.

Dispute Your Irrational Beliefs Now is the time to engage in the reappraisal process mentioned earlier in this chapter (page 231). Use the discussion of irrational fallacies on pages247–251 to find out which of your internal statements are based on mistaken thinking. You can do this most effectively by following three steps. First, decide whether each belief you’ve recorded is rational or irrational. Next, explain why the belief does or doesn’t make sense. Finally, if the belief is irrational, consider an alternative way of thinking that is more sensible and that can leave you feeling better when faced with the same activating event in the future.

Change Your Self-Talk Once you’ve disputed your irrational beliefs, it’s time to change your intrapersonal language accordingly. Replace words in your self-talk such as “can’t,” “have to,” and “should” with words like “will,” “want to,” and “choose to.” For example: Instead of saying “I can’t make small talk with strangers,” say “I will ask more questions with strangers.” Instead of saying “I have to be polite to rude customers,” say “I choose to be polite because it’s better than the other options.” Instead of saying “I should be less defensive,” say “I want to be less defensive, so I’m going to work on it.” Some researchers (Kross & Ayduk, 2011) suggest that self-talk is most effective when it’s stated in the second person: addressing yourself as “you” instead of “I.” It’s almost as if you’re coaching yourself. For example, “Jennifer, what are you nervous about? It’s not the first date you’ve ever been on. Iknow you like this guy, but take it slow, and stay calm. Even if it doesn’t go perfectly, it won’t be the end of the world. You’re capable, intelligent, accomplished, beautiful. Just do your best and let the chips fall. Chill, Jen.” (Weintraub, 2015)

After reading about this method for dealing with unpleasant emotions, some readers have objections: “This rational-emotive approach sounds like nothing more than trying to talk yourself out of feeling bad.” This accusation is totally correct. After all, because we talk ourselves into feeling bad, what’s wrong with talking ourselves out of bad feelings, especially when they are based on irrational thoughts?

253

254

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

Media Clip

Self-Talk and Resilience: Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt In what is admittedly dark material for a comedy, Kimmy Schmidt (Ellie Kemper) starts a new life in New York City after escaping from a bunker where she was held captive for 15 years. She hasn’t been part of civilization since the 1990s, so she has lots of catching up to do. Although the premise is far-fetched, Kimmy’s mindset and communication are admirable. She’s “unbreakable” because she’s brimming with confidence and optimism. Kimmy may have felt doomed in the past, but she’s determined to create a bright future. Her language is peppered with Kimmyisms such as “Smile until you feel better” and “Just take everything ten seconds at a time and it will be okay.” When she has self-doubts, she talks herself out of them. Her upbeat attitude is infectious as it brightens the lives of everyone she encounters. Kimmy’s character is a fun reminder that moving forward in life often begins by changing one’s walk and talk; positive emotions will follow.

“The kind of disputing we just read sounds phony and unnatural. I don’t talk to myself in sentences and paragraphs.” There’s no need to dispute your irrational beliefs in any special literary style. You can be just as colloquial as you want. The important thing is to clearly understand what thoughts led you into your debilitative feeling so you can clearly reappraise them. When the technique is new to you, it’s a good idea to write or talk out your thoughts to make them clear. After you’ve had some practice, you’ll be able to do these steps in a quicker, less formal way. “This approach is too cold and impersonal. It seems to aim at turning people into calculating, emotionless machines.” This is simply not true. A rational thinker can still dream, hope, and love—there’s nothing necessarily irrational about feelings like these. Put another way, communicators can use both their heads and their hearts when making decisions (Fetterman & Robinson, 2013). We discuss accentuating positive emotions in the following section. “This technique promises too much. There’s no chance I could rid myself of all unpleasant feelings, however nice that might be.” We can answer this by assuring you that rational-emotive thinking won’t make all your debilitative feelings go away. What it can do is reduce their number, intensity, andduration.

MAXIMIZING FACILITATIVE EMOTIONS

Reducing debilitative emotions is only part of the emotional health equation. Contemporary scholars maintain that fostering positive emotions is just as important as minimizing negative ones. Whether it’s called “learned optimism” (Seligman, 2006) or “positivity” (Fredrickson, 2009), the approach is similar to what’s outlined in this section. If thoughts cause feelings, then positive thoughts can cause positive feelings. Ruminating on the good rather than the bad in life can enhance one’s emotional, relational, and even physical health (RiusOttenheim etal., 2013).

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

255

It’s unrealistic to think that you’ll have a positive emotional response to every event. The key, according to Harvard professor Susan David, is to cultivate what she calls “emotional agility.” Emotional agility is a skill set that builds on our ability to face our emotions, label them, understand them and then choose to move forward deliberately. It is the ability to recognize when you’re feeling stressed, be able to step out of your stress, and then decide how to act in a way that is congruent with your personal values and aligned with your goals. (Semnani, 2016)

Even though you can’t dictate all the events of your life, you have the power to reappraise them. Clichés such as “look on the bright side” and “have an attitude of gratitude” may not be comforting when delivered by others, but they can serve as helpful self-reminders. You can regard challenging situations as growth opportunities. You can focus on what you gained rather than what you lost. You can choose compassion over contempt. The difference between “That really hurt me” and “I found out how strong and capable I really am” is often a matter of mindset—and positive emotions follow positive appraisals. Many people find it easier to focus on their negative emotional experiences. It often takes mindful effort to pay attention to and express pleasurable feelings in close relationships. Here are 10 emotions that research (Fredrickson, 2009) identifies as basic to positivity: joy, gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride, amusement, inspiration, awe, and love. How many have you experienced recently? How often do you express these emotions to people who matter? Is it possible that you felt but can’t recall them? Identifying and then talking or writing about your positive emotional experiences can lead to greater personal and interpersonal satisfaction.

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING Objective 8.1 Explain how emotions are experienced and expressed.

Emotionally intelligent people are generally more effective communicators. Emotions have several dimensions. They are signaled by internal physiological changes, manifested by verbal and nonverbal reactions, and defined in most cases by cognitive interpretations. Q: Over the course of this week, keep a journal recording your emotional responses to interactions in an important relationship. In particular,

pay attention to how those responses begin internally and then are expressed externally.

Objective 8.2 Describe the various

personal and social influences on emotional expression. There are several reasons why people do not verbalize many of the emotions they feel. Certain personality types respond to emotions more negatively than others. Some cultures encourage while others discourage the expression of emotions. Biological

256

PART 2

CR E ATI NG A ND R E SP OND I NG T O MES S A G ES

sex and gender roles also shape the way people experience and express emotions. Many social roles and rules discourage the expression of some feelings, particularly negative ones. Some people express emotions so rarely that they lose the ability to recognize when they are feeling them. Social media may also increase the intensity of emotions for both message senders and receivers. Finally, exposure to others’ emotions can shape the way we ourselves feel through the process of emotional contagion. Q: Nature versus nurture: Analyze the various factors that influence whether and how you express your emotions. To what extent do you think your responses are primarily based on your personality (i.e., nature)? What social and environmental factors (i.e., nurture) shape the way you do or don’t express emotions? Give examples to illustrate your analysis.

Objective 8.3 Demonstrate how to

express your emotions appropriately and effectively. Because total expression of feelings is not appropriate for adults, several guidelines help define when and how to share emotions effectively. Self-awareness, clear language, and expression of multiple feelings are important, as is the ability to recognize the difference between feeling and acting. Willingness to accept responsibility for feelings instead of blaming them on

others leads to better reactions. Choosing the proper time and place to share feelings is also important. Q: Assess how effectively you express your emotions. Are you able to identify your feelings and put them into words? How appropriately do you share them with others? How could you apply the guidelines in this chapter to express your emotions more effectively and appropriately?

Objective 8.4 Distinguish between

facilitative and debilitative emotions, and explain how reappraisal may be used to manage emotions effectively. Whereas some emotions are facilitative, meaning they contribute to effective functioning, other debilitative feelings inhibit effective performance. Many of these debilitative emotions are caused by various types of irrational thinking. It is often possible to communicate more confidently and effectively by identifying troublesome emotions, identifying the activating event and self-talk that triggered them, and reappraising any irrational thoughts with a more logical analysis of the situation. It’s also important to identify and enjoy facilitative emotions. Q: Consider the last time you experienced a debilitative emotion associated with an interpersonal relationship. How well were you able to manage it? How might the methods in this chapter helpyou process emotions such as this one in thefuture?

KEY TERMS Debilitative emotions (244) Emotional contagion (237) Emotional intelligence (228) Emotional labor (235) Facilitative emotions (244) Fallacy of approval (247)

Fallacy of catastrophic expectations (250) Fallacy of causation (249) Fallacy of helplessness (250) Fallacy of overgeneralization (249)

Fallacy of perfection (247) Fallacy of should (248) Reappraisal (231) Rumination (244) Self-talk (246)

ACTIVITIES 1. The Assessing Your Communication exercise on page 243 gives you a general sense of your emotional intelligence. Have two or three people who

are close to you offer their appraisal using the assessment. Do their evaluations match yours? If not, what do you think explains the difference? What

CH A PT ER 8 Emotions

are some ways you might improve your emotional intelligence? 2. Choose an important emotion you experience in one of your relationships. This relationship needn’t be highly personal. You might, for example, focus on an employer, a professor, or a neighbor. Use the guidelines on pages 247–251 to determine whether and how you might express this emotion. Ask someone you know to give you feedback on the choice you made. 3. Explore whether you subscribe to the fallacy of helplessness by completing the following lists. Describe two important (to you) communication- related difficulties you have for each of the f ollowing: communicating with family members, people at school or at work, strangers, and friends. Use the following format for each difficulty: I can’t __________________. because _________________. Now read the list aloud to a classmate, but with a slight difference. For each “can’t,” substitute the word “won’t.” Note which statements are actually “won’ts.” Tell your classmate if you feel differently about this statement when you change the wording. Read the list to your classmate again, only this time substitute “I don’t know how to” for your

257

original “can’t.” Rewrite any statements that are truly “don’t know hows,” and decide what you could do to learn the skill that you presently lack. Tell your classmate if you feel differently about this statement when you change the wording. Based on your experience, decide whether you subscribe to the fallacy of helplessness, and what you could do to eliminate this sort of debilitative thinking. 4. Choose an important situation in which you experience debilitative emotions that interfere with your ability to communicate effectively. With the help of a partner or class group, use the steps on pages251–254 to reappraise the rationality of your beliefs. Report on how the rational-emotive approach affects your communication in this important situation. 5. For one week, keep a daily journal in which you identify all the positive emotions you experience in your relationships. In particular, watch for these 10 emotions: joy, gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride, amusement, inspiration, awe, and love. At the end of the week, reflect on whether your journaling helped you notice and remember positive emotions you might otherwise have missed or forgotten. What strategies can you develop to help you experience and express positive emotions moreoften?

SCORING FOR ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNICATION (PAGE 243)

Reverse-score items 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12 (i.e., 5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, and 1 = 5). Add items 1, 5, and 9. This is your score on the intrapersonal dimension of Emotional Intelligence: _____. The average score for young adult men on this dimension is about 10, with most scores between 8 and 12; for young adult women, the average is about 11, with most scores between 9 and 13. Add items 2, 6, and 10. This is your score on the interpersonal dimension of Emotional Intelligence: _____. The average score for young adult men on this dimension is about 12, with most scores between 10 and 14; for young adult women, the average is about 13, with most scores between 11 and 15. Add items 3, 7, and 11. This is your score on the adaptability dimension of Emotional Intelligence: _____. The average score for young adult women and men on this dimension is about 12, with most scores between 10 and 14. Add items 4, 8, and 12. This is your score on the stress management dimension of Emotional Intelligence: _____. The average score for young adult women and men on this dimension is about 9, with most scores between 7 and 11.

9 Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships LEARNING OBJECTIVES

CHAPTER OUTLINE

9.1

Why We Form Relationships 260

9.2 9.3

Recognize the various reasons for entering into interpersonal relationships. Describe the stages and dialectical tensions typically experienced in interpersonal relationships. Identify specific skills communicators can use to maintain and improve their interpersonal relationships.

FEATURES Dark Side of Communication: The Anguish of Abusive Relationships 263 Media Clip: The Power and Peril of Disclosure: Homeland 265 Focus on Research: Communicating About Relational Baggage 268 Focus on Research: The Dialectical Tensions of Cell Phone Use 275 Media Clip: Finding Connection: Trainwreck 276 Watch and Discuss: “Couples Swap Phones and Go Through Each Other’s History” 277 Assessing Your Communication: Relational Maintenance 282 At Work: Relational Repair on the Job 284

• Appearance 260 • Similarity 261 • Complementarity 262 • Rewards 262 • Competency 264 • Proximity 265 • Disclosure 265

Models of Relational Dynamics 266 • Stages of Relational Development 266 • Dialectical Tensions 273

Communicating About Relationships 278 • Content and Relational Messages 278 • Maintaining and Supporting Relationships 280 • Repairing Damaged Relationships 284 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 287 KEY TERMS 288 ACTIVITIES 288

259

260

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

“I’m looking for a meaningful relationship.” “Our relationship has changed lately.” “The relationship is good for both of us.” “This relationship isn’t working.”

ELATIONSHIP is one of those terms people use all the time but have trouble defining. Even scholars who have devoted their careers to studying relationships don’t agree on what the term means (Guerrero et al., 2014). Their definitions include words such as “closeness,” “influence,” “commitment,” and “intimacy”—but coming up with a single definition can be (as the old adage goes) like nailing Jell-O to a wall. In this chapter, we explore some of the general dynamics that characterize interpersonal relationships and the communication that occurs within them. After reading it, you will see that relationships aren’t fixed or unchanging. Rather, they can, and often do, change over time. In other words, a relationship is less a thing than a process. We look at why we form relationships, the dynamics of those relationships, and how to manage them. In Chapter 10, the companion to this chapter, we extend our discussion by focusing on specific relational contexts: close relationships with friends, family, and romantic partners.

WHY WE FORM RELATIONSHIPS Why do we form relationships with some people and not with others? Sometimes we have no choice: Children can’t select their parents, and most workers aren’t able to choose their colleagues. In many other cases, however, we seek out some people and actively avoid others. Social scientists have collected an impressive body of research on interpersonal attraction (e.g., Finkel & Baumeister, 2010; Graziano & Bruce, 2008). The following are some of the factors they have identified that influence our choice of relational partners.

APPEARANCE Most people claim we should judge others on the basis of how they act, not how they look, but we often do the opposite (Swami & Furnham, 2008). For instance, physical appearance seems to be the primary basis for attraction for speed daters (Luo & Zhang, 2009). These first impressions can influence secondary ones. For example, when photos rated as attractive accompany online profiles, raters appraise the profile text more positively (Brand et al., 2012). Online profile owners are also rated as more attractive when they have pictures of physically attractive friends on their sites (Jaschinski & Kommers, 2012). The opposite is also true: Face images are rated as less attractive when they appear near those rated as unattractive or average (Rodway et al., 2013).

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

Even if your appearance isn’t beautiful by societal standards, consider these facts. First, after initial impressions have passed, ordinary-looking people with pleasing personalities are likely to be judged as attractive (Lewandowski et al., 2007), and perceived beauty can be influenced by traits such as liking, respect, familiarity, and social interaction (Albada et al., 2002; Singh et al., 2009). Second, physical factors become less important as a relationship progresses. In fact, as romantic relationships develop, partners create “positive illusions,” viewing one another as more physically attractive over time (Barelds et al., 2011).

SIMILARITY According to what’s known as the similarity thesis, perhaps the strongest determinant of relationship formation is similarity to another person (Montoya & Horton, 2013). For example, one study found that similar values about politics and religion are the best predictors of mate choice—significantly more than attraction to physical appearance or personality traits (Alford et al., 2011). Similarity plays an important role in initial attraction. People are more likely to accept a Facebook friend request from a stranger who is perceived to be similar than from one perceived as different (Martin et al., 2013). The word “perceived” is important in the preceding sentence. Research shows that speed daters are more attracted to similarities they believe they have (“We seem to have a lot in common”) than to actual similarities (Tidwell et al., 2013). This finding demonstrates that attraction based on similarities is a subjective process. In fact, research suggests that deciding you like someone often leads to perceptions of similarity rather than the other way around (Sprecher, 2014). There are several reasons why similarity is a strong foundation for relationships. First, similarity can be validating. The fact that another person shares your beliefs, tastes, and values is a form of ego support. One study described the lengths to which “implicit egotism” may unconsciously affect perceptions of attractiveness (Jones et al., 2004). Results showed that people are disproportionately likely to marry others whose first or last names resemble their own, and they’re also attracted to those with similar birthdays and even with the same sports jersey numbers (see also Simonsohn, 2011). Second, similarity makes others more predictable and more likely to enjoy the same activities you do, such as going to particular restaurants or concerts. The ability to make confident predictions about others’ behavior reduces uncertainty and anxiety (Montoya & Horton, 2013), which leads to greater emotional and relational stability (Cheng & Grühn, 2016).

261

262

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

There’s a third explanation for the similarity thesis. When we learn that other people are similar to us, we may assume they’ll probably like us, so we in turn like them. The self-fulfilling prophecy creeps into the picture again.

COMPLEMENTARITY The old saying “opposites attract” seems to contradict the principle of similarity. In truth, though, both are valid. Differences strengthen a relationship when they are complementary—when each partner’s characteristics satisfy the other’s needs. Research suggests that attraction to partners who have comFor more than 50 years, TV and film episodes of Star Trek plementary temperaments might be rooted in biolhave followed the adventures of the emotional James Kirk and his hyperrational first mate, Spock, illustrating how ogy (Fisher, 2007). In addition, some studies show complementary personalities can lead to rich, satisfying that couples are more likely to be attracted to each relationships. In what ways are any of your close relationships enriched by complementarity? other when one partner is dominant and the other passive (Swami & Furnham, 2008). Relationships also work well when the partners agree that one will exercise control in certain areas (“You make the final decisions about money”) and the other will take the lead in different ones (“I’ll decide how we ought to decorate the place”). Disagreement over control issues, however, can cause strains. One study shows that “spendthrifts and tightwads” are often attracted to each other, but their differences in financial management lead to significant conflict over the course of a relationship (Rick et al., 2011). Studies that have examined successful and unsuccessful couples over a 20-year period show the interaction between similarities and differences (Klohnen & Luo, 2003). When partners are radically different, the dissimilar qualities that at first appear intriguing later become cause for relational breakups (Amodio & Showers, 2005). Partners in successful marriages were similar enough to satisfy each other physically and mentally, but were different enough to meet each other’s needs and keep the relationship interesting. Successful couples find ways to keep a balance between their similarities and differences while adjusting to the changes that occur over the years (Shiota & Levenson, 2007).

REWARDS Some relationships are based on an economic model called social exchange theory (Stafford, 2008; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). This approach suggests that we seek out people who can give us rewards that are greater than or equal to the costs we encounter in dealing with the relationship. Social exchange theorists define rewards as any outcomes we desire. They may be tangible (anice place to live, a high-paying job) or intangible (prestige, emotional support, companionship). Costs are undesirable outcomes: unpleasant work, emotional pain, and so on. A simple formula captures the social exchange explanation for why we form and maintain relationships: Rewards – Costs = Outcome

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

263

According to social exchange theorists, we use this formula (often unconsciously) to DARK SIDE OF COMMUNICATION calculate whether a relationship is a “good The Anguish of Abusive deal” or “not worth the effort,” based on whether the outcome is positive or negative Relationships (Frisby et al., 2015). At its most blatant level, an exchange It would be nice if all our relationships were happy, approach seems cold and calculating, but in healthy, and mutually reinforcing. The unfortunate some types of relationships it can be quite truth, however, is that some relationships become appropriate. A healthy business relationship abusive. Abuse can be mental, emotional, verbal, is based on how well the parties help one sexual, or physical, and it can leave scars that another, and some friendships are based on remain long after the relationship is over. an informal kind of barter: “I don’t mind lisMany abusive relationships don’t end when tening to the ups and downs of your love they should. Why do people stay in them? Social life, because you rescue me when the house exchange theory offers an explanation (Kreager needs repairs.” Even close relationships have et al., 2013). Abused partners often believe that a an element of exchange. Friends and lovers bad relationship is better than no relationship at all. often tolerate each other’s quirks because They may also have trouble seeing viable relational the comfort and enjoyment they get make alternatives. Perspective gets lost and rationalizathe less-than-pleasant times worth accepttions get made—and the pain goes on. Research ing. However, when one partner feels “unhas shown that people in abusive dating relationderbenefited,” it often leads to relational ships underestimate how unhappy they really are disruption or termination (DeMaris, 2007). and overestimate how unhappy they would be if the Costs and rewards don’t exist in isorelationship were to end (Arriaga et al., 2013). lation; we define them by comparing a Professional help is vital for pulling free from an certain situation with alternatives. For abusive relationship (www.healthyplace.com/abuse example, consider a hypothetical woman, offers information and resources). Experts recomGloria, who is struggling to decide whether mend the following: to remain in a relationship with Raymond, her longtime romantic partner. Raymond • Don’t keep abuse a secret. At the very least, loves Gloria, but he’s not perfect: He has tell a trusted friend or family member what’s a hair-trigger temper, and he has become happening to you—and then ask that person verbally abusive from time to time. Also, to help you get help. Gloria knows that Raymond was unfaith• Watch for patterns. Abuse often happens ful to her at least once. In deciding whether in cycles. If you’re in the upside of a cycle to stay with Raymond, Gloria will use two and all is calm, it can be easy to ignore or standards. overlook a previous violation. But if the abuse The first standard is her comparison returns, it probably won’t be the last time. level (CL)—her minimum standard of • Resist self-blame. Abused people often what behavior is acceptable. If Gloria bebelieve they are at fault for what happened to lieves that relational partners have an oblithem, and that somehow they “had it coming.” gation to be faithful and treat one another Remember—no one deserves abuse. respectfully at all times, then Raymond’s behavior will fall below her comparison level. This will be especially true if Gloria has had positive romantic relationships in the past (Merolla et al., 2004). On the other hand, if Gloria adopts a “nobody’s perfect” standard, she is more likely to view Raymond’s behavior as meeting or exceeding her comparison level.

264

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

Gloria also will rate Raymond according to her comparison level of alternatives (CLalt). This standard refers to a comparison between the rewards she receives in her present situation and those she could expect to receive in others (Overall & Sibley, 2008). If, for example, Gloria doesn’t want to be alone and she thinks, “If I don’t have Raymond I won’t have anyone,” then her CLalt would be lower than her present situation; but if she is confident that she could find a kinder partner, her CLalt would be higher than the status quo. Research suggests that when a sense of connection is lacking in a romantic relationship, the draw of intimacy from romantic alternatives becomes particularly strong (Spielmann et al., 2012). Social exchange theorists suggest that communicators unconsciously use this calculus to decide whether to form and stay in relationships. At first this information seems to offer little comfort to those who are in unsatisfying relationships, such as when the partner’s behavior is below the CL and there are no foreseeable or preferable alternatives (CLalt). But there are choices other than being stuck in situations where the costs outweigh the rewards. First, you might make sure that you are judging your present relationship against a realistic CL. Expecting a situation to be perfect can be a recipe for unhappiness and relational dissatisfaction (Mikkelson et al., 2016). If you decide that your present situation truly falls below your CL, you might explore whether there are other alternatives you haven’t considered. And finally, the skills introduced throughout this book may help you negotiate a better relationship with the other person (assuming the relationship isn’t abusive—see the Dark Side box on page 263).

COMPETENCY We like to be around talented people, probably because we hope their skills and abilities will rub off on us. On the other hand, we are uncomfortable around those who are too competent—perhaps because we look bad by comparison. And we’re attracted most to competence in others when it’s accompanied by a warm rather than cool personality (Fiske et al., 2007). Elliot Aronson and his associates (2008) demonstrated how competence and imperfection combine to affect attraction. The researchers asked subjects to evaluate recordings of two candidates for a quiz program. One candidate seemed perfect: He answered almost all the questions correctly and modestly admitted that he was an honor student, accomplished athlete, and college yearbook editor. The other candidate was average: He answered fewer questions correctly, had lower grades, was a less successful athlete, and was a lower level member of the yearbook staff. Toward the end of half the recordings, the candidates committed a blunder, spilling coffee all over themselves. The remaining half of the recordings contained no such blunder. These, then, were the four experimental conditions: (1) a person with superior ability who blundered, (2) a person with superior ability who did not blunder, (3) an average person who blundered, and (4) an average person who did not blunder. The ratings of the candidates in these four conditions revealed an interesting and important principle of interpersonal attraction. The person rated as most attractive was the

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

265

superior candidate who blundered. Aronson’s conclusion was that we like competence—but we also like people who are somewhat flawed because they remind us of ourselves.

PROXIMITY As common sense suggests, we are likely to develop relationships with people with whom we interact frequently (Flora, 2005). In many cases, proximity leads to liking. For instance, we’re more likely to develop friendships with close neighbors—whether near where we live or in adjacent seats in our classrooms (Back et al., 2008)—than with distant ones. Chances are also good that we’ll choose a mate with whom we cross paths often. Proximity even has a role in social media, where messaging or chatting can create virtual proximity (Baker, 2008). As one researcher notes, when it comes to social networking sites, cultural proximity outweighs geographic proximity (Rohn, 2014). Facts like these are understandable when we consider that proximity allows us to get more information about other people and benefit from a relationship with them. Also, people in close proximity may be more similar to us—for example, if we live in the same neighborhood, odds are we have the same socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURE In Chapter 3, we describe how telling others important information about yourself can help build liking, both in person (Dindia, 2002; Sprecher et al., 2013) and through social media (Ledbetter et al., 2011). Sometimes the basis of this attraction comes from learning about ways we are similar, either in experiences (“I broke off an engagement myself”) or in attitudes (“I feel nervous with strangers, too”). Self-disclosure also increases liking because it indicates regard. Sharing private information is a form of respect and trust—a kind of liking that we’ve already seen increases attractiveness. Not all disclosure leads to liking. Research shows that the key to satisfying selfdisclosure is reciprocity: getting back an

Media Clip

The Power and Peril of Disclosure: Homeland Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes) is in the espionage business. Her job is to protect homeland security by uncovering enemy spies and their plots. It’s a scary way to make a living, but Carrie gets a thrill out of living on the edge. Espionage operatives often use threats or violence to gain intel, but Carrie uses different tactics. She befriends those from whom she wants information, slowly forming relationships with them. She self-discloses and becomes vulnerable, and they lower their defenses and let her into their lives. While this allows Carrie to gain their confidence and learn their secrets, it often leaves her in relational predicaments—because the enemy has become her friend, or even her lover. Carrie’s approach creates ethical dilemmas, but she clearly understands relational basics: Disclosure begets disclosure, trust leads to trust, and both help create interpersonal bonds.

266

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

amount and kind of information equivalent to what you reveal (Dindia, 2000a). A second important ingredient in successful self-disclosure is timing. It’s probably unwise to talk about your sexual insecurities with a new acquaintance or express your pet peeves to a friend at your birthday party. This is particularly true on social media: Disclosures made privately are perceived as more appropriate and intimate than those made publicly; also, disclosures made publicly reduce liking for the discloser (Bazarova, 2012). Finally, for the sake of self-protection, it’s important to reveal personal information only when you are sure the other person is trustworthy (Shirley et al., 2007).

MODELS OF RELATIONAL DYNAMICS Even the most stable relationships vary from day to day and over longer periods of time. Communication scholars have attempted to describe and explain how communication creates and reflects the changing dynamics of relationships. In this section, we discuss two different characterizations of relational development and interaction.

STAGES OF RELATIONAL DEVELOPMENT One of the best known models of relational stages was developed by Mark Knapp (Knapp et al., 2014; see also Dunleavy & Booth-Butterfield, 2009; Mongeau & Henningsen, 2008), who broke the waxing and waning of relationships into 10 steps that involve coming together and coming apart. Other researchers have suggested that any model of relational communication ought to contain a third area—relational maintenance—aimed at keeping relationships operating smoothly and satisfactorily (we’ll discuss relational maintenance in more detail later in this chapter). Figure 9.1 shows how Knapp’s 10 stages fit into this three-part view of relational communication. We now explore each stage in detail.

Relational Maintenance Bonding Coming Together

FIGURE 9.1 Stages of Relationship Development Adapted from Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2014). Interpersonal communication in human relationships (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Integrating Intensifying

Experimenting Initiating

Differentiating Circumscribing

Coming Apart

Stagnating Avoiding

Terminating

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

Initiating The goals in the initiating stage are to show that you are interested in making contact and to demonstrate that you are a person worth talking to (Sprecher et al., 2008). Communication during this stage is usually brief, and it generally follows conventional formulas: handshakes, remarks about innocuous subjects such as the weather, and friendly expressions. Such behavior may seem superficial and meaningless, but it is a way of signaling that you’re interested in building some kind of relationship with the other person. It allows us to say, without saying, “I’m a friendly person, and I’d like to get to know you.” Initiating relationships—especially romantic ones—can be particularly difficult for people who are shy. Social media can make it easier for reticent people to strike up a relationship (Baker & Oswald, 2010). Not only is online initiating easier for some, but it can result in successful relationships. In one survey, more than a third of 19,000 married respondents said their relationship began online (Cacioppo et al., 2013). When compared with marital relationships that began in person, those that started online had slightly higher satisfaction rates and slightly lower incidences of breakups. Keep in mind that initiating is the opening stage of all relationships, not just romantic ones. Friendships start here (Johnson et al., 2004), and so do business partnerships. In fact, some have compared employment interviews to first dates because they have similar properties (Half, 2016). As you read about the stages that follow, consider how the communication involved could be true of landing a job, connecting with a roommate, or joining an organization—as well as forming a romantic relationship.

Experimenting After making contact with an interesting new person, we generally begin a phase known as experimenting, the search for common ground. We usually start with the basics: “Where are you from? What’s your major?” From there we look for other similarities: “You’re a runner, too? How many miles do you run a week?” The hallmark of experimenting is small talk. We tolerate the ordeal of small talk because it serves several functions. First, it is a useful way to find out what interests we share with the other person. It also provides a way to “audition” the other person—to help us decide whether a relationship is worth pursuing. In addition, small talk is a safe way to ease into a relationship. You haven’t risked much as you decide whether to proceed further. Scholars have noted, and your experience probably confirms, the importance of social media during the experimenting stage. As Katrina Shonbeck (2011) points out, some basic information gathering is often done quickly online: By perusing someone’s social networking profile, I can, more often than not, learn many of the same things I’d learn from them during the first couple of dates without the other person being present. From what they disclose on the general information page, I can learn their relationship statuses, political preferences, favorite hobbies, music, books, and movies. By looking through their pictures and their wall, I can get a pretty good sense of the kinds of people they like to hang out with, what they like to do on weekends, their personal styles. (p. 398)

267

268

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

Communicating About Relational Baggage Carrying “relational baggage” can be tough, and disclosing it to a relational partner even tougher. A research team led by communication scholar Brandi Frisby investigated this delicate subject. Relational baggage is broadly defined as “negative attributes and situations” that people bring with them into subsequent relationships. This includes, but isn’t limited to, previous partners (the crazy ex), social networks (the flaky friend), personality characteristics (abnormally jealous), and relational goals (commit or quit). The researchers asked several hundred undergraduates about their experiences with relational baggage. Most participants readily acknowledged that relational baggage was a source of anxiety in their

romantic relationships. Hearing about baggage overtly—through direct disclosure or questions— was generally related to relational satisfaction. On the other hand, learning of it from third-party sources (e.g., a mutual friend or a former partner) had negative effects on relationships. The researchers aren’t suggesting that you blurt out personal details from your past, especially not right away. However, as a relationship progresses through the stages described in these pages, you may decide to disclose your relational baggage before others do so. Of course, some issues may never be shared. But in general, when partners begin forming bonds, “even negative information such as baggage may not be harmful.”

Frisby, B. N., Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2015). No harm, no foul: A social exchange perspective on individual and relational outcomes associated with relational baggage. Western Journal of Communication, 79, 555–572.

College students in one study said this stage in romantic relationships often involves a social media request or invite (Fox et al., 2013). Once access is given, communicators can look over each other’s site, learning important information about the other person at a glance. Photos and mutual friends are important factors in deciding whether to continue developing a relationship. And of course, gathering this information online is less face-threatening and involves no stammering, blushing, or awkward pauses. Of course, not all relational experiments are successful. You can probably think of times when you knew within an hour of meeting up with a potential new friend that things were going nowhere. The same can happen when online daters take the plunge and meet in person. The relationship that seemed promising in virtual reality may become less so when interacting face to face. Communication researchers call this shift in communication channels modality switching and have found that it comes with a variety of challenges (Ramirez et al., 2015). In general, the longer online couples hold off on meeting in person, the more awkward it will be when they attempt to transition to face-to-face communication.

Intensifying When a relationship begins intensifying, communicators increase their amount of contact and the breadth and depth of their self-disclosure. In friendships, intensifying often includes spending more time together,

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

269

participating in shared activities, hanging out with mutual friends, or taking trips together (Johnson et al., 2004). Dating couples use a wide range of strategies to communicate that their relationship is intensifying (Levine et al., 2006). About a quarter of the time they express their feelings directly to discuss the state of the relationship, such as saying “I love you” (Brantley et al., 2002). More often they use less direct methods of communication, perhaps as a way to protect their face: doing favors for the partner, giving tokens of affection, hinting and flirting, expressing feelings nonverbally, getting to know the partner’s friends and family, and trying to look more attractive. The intensifying stage is usually a time of relational excitement and even euphoria. In friendships, it’s about enthusiasm for having a new “BFF.” For romantic partners, it’s often filled with starstruck gazes, goosebumps, and daydreaming. As a result, it’s a stage that’s regularly depicted in movies and romance novels—after all, we love to watch lovers in love (Johnson & Holmes, 2009). The problem, of course, is that the stage doesn’t last forever. Sometimes romantic partners who stop feeling goosebumps begin to question whether they’re still in love, and friends begin to discover one another’s flaws. Although it’s possible that the relationship isn’t as good as it seems, it’s equally likely that it has simply moved on to a different stage— such as integrating.

Integrating As the relationship strengthens, the individuals enter an integrating stage; they begin to take on an identity as a social unit. Invitations begin to come addressed to a couple. Social circles merge. The partners share each other’s commitments: “Sure, we’ll spend Thanksgiving with your family.” They may begin to designate common property— our apartment, our car, our song (Baxter, 1987). Partners create their own personal idioms (Dunleavy & Booth-Butterfield, 2009) and forms of play (Baxter, 1992). They develop routines and rituals that reinforce their identity as a couple—jogging together, eating at a favorite restaurant, expressing physical affection, and worshipping together (Afifi & Johnson, 1999; Bosson et al., 2006). As these examples illustrate, the stage of integrating is a time when we give up some characteristics of our former selves and become enmeshed with another person (Slotter & Gardner, 2009).

270

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

Integrating may include going “Facebook Official” (FBO) by declaring publicly that a couple is “in a relationship” (Lane et al., 2016). Of course, problems arise when one partner wants to be FBO and the other doesn’t (Papp et al., 2012). And the meaning of FBO can be different for each partner. One study found that in heterosexual relationships, women tend to perceive FBO declarations as involving more intensity and commitment than men do (Fox & Warber, 2013). As a result, women may connect FBO status with the rights and restrictions normally associated with bonding—a stage we look at now. Bonding is a formalized statement of relational commitment. What messages have been exchanged in bonding rituals you have experienced? In what ways did those messages seem to affect the way the relationship unfolded?

Bonding

During the bonding stage, partners make symbolic public gestures to show the world that their relationship exists and that a commitment has been made (Foster, 2008). These can include engagement or marriage, sharing a residence, a public ceremony, or a written or verbal pledge. The key is that bonding is the culmination of a developed relationship—the “officializing” of a couple’s integration. Relationships don’t have to be romantic to achieve bonding. Consider, for instance, authors contracting to write a book together or a student being initiated into a sorority. As Lillian Rubin (1985) notes, in some cultures there are rituals for friends to mark their bonded status through a public commitment: Some Western cultures have rituals to mark the progress of a friendship and to give it public legitimacy and form. In Germany, for example, there’s a small ceremony called Duzen, the name itself signifying the transformation in the relationship. The ritual calls for the two friends, each holding a glass of wine or beer, to entwine arms, thus bringing each other physically close, and to drink up after making a promise of eternal brotherhood with the word Bruderschaft. When it’s over, the friends will have passed from a relationship that requires the formal Sie mode of address to the familiar du.

Bonding usually marks an important turning point in relationships. Up to now the relationship may have developed at a steady pace: Experimenting gradually moved into intensifying and then into integrating. Now, however, there is a surge of commitment. The public display and declaration of exclusivity make this a critical period in the relationship.

Differentiating So far, we have been looking at the growth of relationships. Although some reach a plateau of development, going on successfully for as long as a lifetime, others pass through several stages of decline and dissolution. Even in the most committed relationships, partners often find themselves needing to reestablish their individual identities in a stage Knapp

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

calls differentiating. This transition often shows up in a couple’s pronoun usage. Instead of talking about “our” weekend plans, differentiating conversations focus on what “I” want to do. Relational issues that were once agreed on (such as “You’ll be the breadwinner and I’ll manage the home”) now become points of contention: “Why am I stuck at home when I have better career potential than you?” The root of the term differentiating is the word different, suggesting that change plays an important role in this stage. Differentiation also can be positive, considering that people need to be individuals as well as part of a relationship. Think, for instance, of young adults who want to forge their own unique lives and identities, even while maintaining their relationships with their families of origin (Skowron et al., 2009). The same can hold true for international couples who want to stay connected to their individual cultural values as well to each other (Kim et al., 2012a). As Figure 9.1 on page 266 shows, differentiating is often a part of normal relational maintenance in which partners manage the inevitable challenges that come their way. The key to successful differentiation is maintaining commitment to a relationship while also creating the space for being individuals (we describe this later in the chapter as the connection-autonomy dialectic).

Circumscribing In the circumscribing stage, partners reduce the scope of their contact with each other. The word “circumscribe” comes from the Latin meaning “to draw circles around.” Distinctions that emerged in the differentiating stage become more clearly marked and labeled: “my friends” and “your friends”; “my bank account” and “your bank account”; “my room” and “your room.” Such distinctions can be markers of a healthy balance between individual and relational identity. They become a problem, however, when there are clearly more areas of separation than integration in a relationship, or when the areas of separation seriously limit interaction, such as taking a personal vacation expressly to put space between you and your partner.

Stagnating If circumscribing continues, the relationship begins to stagnate. Members behave toward each other in old, familiar ways without much feeling. No growth occurs; relational boredom sets in (Harasymchuk & Fehr, 2013). The stagnating relationship is a shell of its former self. We see stagnation in many workers who have lost enthusiasm for their job yet continue to go through the motions for years. The same sad event occurs for some couples who unenthusiastically have the same conversations, see the same people, and follow the same routines without any sense of joy or novelty.

Avoiding When stagnation becomes too unpleasant, people in a relationship begin to create distance between each other by avoiding. Sometimes they do it under the guise of excuses (“I’ve been sick lately and can’t see you”) and sometimes directly (“Please don’t call me; I don’t want to see you now”).

271

272

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

In either case, by this point the handwriting is on the wall about the relationship’s future. Some relationships stall out at this stage. Friends, lovers, or family members simply drift apart, rarely if ever to interact again. While sometimes that’s a natural parting of ways, other times it leaves important things unsaid. A need for some degree of relationship closure (Dailey et al., 2013) often leads to a final stage: terminating.

Terminating Not all relationships end. Partnerships, friendships, and marriages can last for a lifetime once they’re established. But many do deteriorate and reach the final stage, terminating, which has its own distinguishable pattern (Conlan, 2008). Characteristics of this stage include summary dialogues of where the relationship has gone and the desire to dissociate. The relationship may end with a cordial dinner, a note left on the kitchen table, a phone call, a text, or a legal document stating the dissolution. Depending on each person’s feelings, this terminating stage can be quite short and amicable, or it may be bitterly drawn out over time. Scholars have begun to investigate the role technology can play in relational termination. One survey of 1,000 people found that 45 percent Not all relationships last forever. With skill and goodwill, ending had used their mobile device to end a relationship, a relationship doesn’t have to be combative. How would you describe the communication surrounding termination of your usually by text (Mychalcewycz, 2009). Obviously, past relationships? Could you have done anything differently breaking up this way runs the risk of wounding to make the end more amicable? and infuriating the person being dumped (“She didn’t even have the guts to tell me to my face”) and lessens the likelihood of post-relationship goodwill. A different study found that those on the receiving end of a breakup via a mediated channel tended to have high levels of attachment anxiety—which might explain why their partners didn’t want to deliver the news in person (Weisskirch & Delevi, 2013). Once a relationship is over, it may be wise to take a break from social media connections with that person (LeFebvre et al., 2015). Checking up on a former partner may reduce some uncertainty (Tong, 2013), but surveillance of an ex’s Facebook page is associated with greater distress over the breakup, more negative feelings, and decreased personal growth (Lukacs & Quan-Haase, 2015). And in general, communicating with former partners can have negative consequences on one’s current relationship (Rodriquez et al., 2016). Terminating a relationship is, for many people, a learning experience. Researchers (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003) asked college students who

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

273

recently had a relationship breakup to describe the positive lessons from it that might help them in future relationships. Responses fell into four categories: “person positives,” such as gaining self-confidence and recognizing that it’s all right to cry; “other positives,” such as learning more about what is desired in a partner; “relational positives,” such as how to communicate better and how not to jump into a relationship too quickly; and “environment positives,” such as learning to rely more on friends and how to better balance relationships and school work. And scholars note that although gaining closure might be an ideal for relational termination, finding meaning might be a more attainable and healthy goal (Frost et al., 2016).

DIALECTICAL TENSIONS Not all theorists agree that relational stages are the best way to explain relational dynamics. Some maintain that it’s possible for a relationship to have attributes of both “coming together” and “coming apart” at the same time. Maintaining relationships, then, is about managing these competing goals. Scholars call these struggles dialectical tensions: conflicts that arise when two opposing or incompatible desires exist simultaneously in a relationship. Communication scholars including Leslie Baxter (2011; Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008) and William Rawlins (1992) have identified several dialectical forces that make successful communication challenging. Table 9.1 summarizes three that we experience both internally—within the relationship—and externally—as we and our relational partners face the world. Although descriptors such as “struggles” and “conflicts” can make dialectical tensions sound negative, it’s best to see them as normal and manageable factors in maintaining healthy relationships.

Integration Versus Separation Recognizing that no one is an island, we seek out involvement with others. But, at the same time, we are unwilling to sacrifice our entire identity to even the most satisfying relationship. The conflicting desires for connection and independence are embodied in the integration–separation TABLE 9.1 Dialectical

Tensions Integration–Separation

Stability–Change

Expression–Privacy

Internal Dialectic

Connection–Autonomy

Predictability–Novelty

Openness–Closedness

External Dialectic

Inclusion–Seclusion

Conventionality–Uniqueness

Revelation–Concealment

From Baxter, L. A. (1994). A dialogic approach to relationship maintenance. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (p. 240). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

274

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

dialectic. Sociolinguist Deborah Tannen (1986) captures this dialectic nicely by evoking the image of two porcupines trying to get through a cold winter: T hey huddle together for warmth, but their sharp quills prick each other, so they pull away. But then they get cold. They have to keep adjusting their closeness and distance to keep from freezing and from getting pricked by their fellow porcupines—the source of both comfort and pain. We need to get close to each other to have a sense of community, to feel we’re not alone in the world. But we need to keep our distance from each other to preserve our independence, so others don’t impose on or engulf us. This duality reflects the human condition. We are individual and social creatures. We need other people to survive, but we want to survive as individuals.

Internally (within a relationship), the struggle shows up in the connection–autonomy dialectic: We want to be close to others, but at the same time we seek independence (Frost & Forrester, 2013). The ability to manage the conflicting needs for connection and autonomy is basic to relational success (Erbert, 2000; Sahlstein & Dun, 2008). Some of the most common reasons for relational breakups involve failure of partners to satisfy one Even in the closest relationships, we seek autonomy as well as another’s needs for connection: “We barely spent connection. How successfully have you juggled the opposing needs for integration and separation? How could you any time together”; “My partner wasn’t commitmanage these tensions more successfully? ted to the relationship.” But other relational complaints involve excessive demands for connection: “I was feeling trapped”; “I needed freedom” (Hui et al., 2013). Perhaps not surprisingly, research suggests that in heterosexual romantic relationships, men often want more autonomy and women typically want more connection and commitment (Buunk, 2005; Feeney, 1999). Mobile devices can create a connection–autonomy dilemma (Duran et al., 2011). Frequent interaction during the day via cell phone can be a means for building intimacy in a romantic relationship (Boyle & O’Sullivan, 2016). However, receiving too many texts and calls can feel imposing or even smothering. This is a source of conflict for many couples and may require some negotiation of “rules” (Miller-Ott et al., 2012), such as “Please don’t text me during job hours” or “I’ll respond when the concert’s over.” The Focus on Research sidebar in this section further considers how mobile devices can be part of such dialectical tensions. These tensions occur in nonromantic relationships too. You can probably think of friends and family members who expect you to be always responsive via cell phone, yet you need some space from them (Hall & Baym, 2012; Eden & Veksler, 2016).

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

275

This serves as a reminder that dialectical tensions exist in most close relationships. In fact, Chapter 10 will look at how connection–autonomy is a central dialectic in managing family communication. The tension between integration and separation also operates externally. In the inclusion–seclusion dialectic, a relational pair must reconcile a desire for both involvement with others outside the relationship and time together within the relationship. For example, at the end of a busy week, does a couple accept the invitation to a party (and sacrifice the chance to spend quality time with each other), or do they decline the invitation (and risk losing contact with valued friends)? Does a close-knit nuclear family choose to take a vacation together (instead of visiting relatives), or do they attend a family reunion (losing precious time to enjoy each other without any distractions)? How does a just-married couple negotiate time demands with in-laws when inclusion–seclusion tensions typically run high (Prentice, 2009)? These are questions that need to be answered in all close relationships.

Stability Versus Change The stability–change dialectic acknowledges that stability is an important need in relationships, but that too much of it can lead to feelings of staleness. The predictability–novelty dialectic describes how this operates within a relationship. Although nobody wants a completely unpredictable

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

The Dialectical Tensions of Cell Phone Use When spending time with a romantic partner, should you focus exclusively on each other—or is it okay to keep up with your social networks via cell phone? Do you have a say in each other’s phone habits—or are you free to check your devices as you please? Such dialectical tensions are normal, according to researchers Aimee Miller-Ott and Lynne Kelly. They ran focus groups with college students in dating relationships. The participants talked about using mobile devices in the presence of dating partners. Two sets of dialectical tensions emerged from the data. The researchers titled the first struggle Community vs. Romance (similar to the inclusion–exclusion dialectic). On one hand, partners said they want to stay in touch with their social networks while dating (“You shouldn’t just stop talking to your friends just

because you’re out with someone”). At the same time, putting away one’s phone is a loving act toward a partner because “you’re trying to convey to that person that you mean a lot to me and I wanna give you my time.” A second tension is Control vs. Freedom (similar to the connection–autonomy dialectic). Participants said they want to take charge of both their own and their partner’s habitual phone use, which often feels out of control. But doing so can infringe on autonomy: “I don’t want to be told what I can and can’t do.” The participants said these tensions were a source of conflict in their dating relationships. There’s no easy solution, but some relational metacommunication (as described on p. 279) about cell phone expectations might help you negotiate ways to manage conflicting desires.

Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2016). Competing discourses and meaning making about romantic partners’ cell-phone contact with non-present others. Communication Studies, 67, 58–76.

276

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

relational partner (“You’re not the person I married!”), humorist Dave Barry (1990) exaggerates only slightly when he talks about the boredom that can come when partners know each other too well:

Media Clip

fter a decade or so of marriage, you A know everything about your spouse, every habit and opinion and twitch and tic and minor skin growth. You could write a seventeen-pound book solely about the way your spouse eats. This kind of intimate knowledge can be very handy in certain situations—such as when you’re on a TV quiz show where the object is to identify your spouse from the sound of his or her chewing—but it tends to lower the passion level of a relationship. (p. 47)

Finding Connection: Trainwreck At an early age, Amy Townsend (Amy Schumer) is taught to repeat these words by her father: “Monogamy is impossible.” It’s a lesson she lives out in her (many) romantic encounters. Amy is good at her job and great at her nightlife, but she’s a disaster at maintaining intimate relationships. In spite of herself, Amy eventually falls in love with Aaron Conners (Bill Hader), a nice-guy surgeon. It’s a predictable romantic comedy with one twist of stereotyping: It is she, not he, who struggles to commit. In terms of relational dialectics, Amy learns to balance autonomy with connection and novelty with predictability—and in so doing keeps their relational train from wrecking.

At an external level, the conventionality– uniqueness dialectic captures the challenges that people in a relationship face when trying to meet others’ expectations while being true to themselves. On one hand, stable patterns of behavior do emerge that enable others to make useful judgments such as “happy family” or “dependable organization.” But those blanket characterizations can stifle people in relationships who may sometimes want to break away from the expectations others hold of them. For example, playing the conventional role of “happy family” or “perfect couple” during a time of conflict can be a burden when the couple feels the need to behave in less stereotypical ways.

Expression Versus Privacy

Disclosure is one characteristic of interpersonal relationships. Yet, along with the drive for intimacy, we have an equally important need to maintain some space between ourselves and others. Thesesometimes conflicting drives create the expression–privacy dialectic. The internal struggle between expression and privacy shows up in the openness–closedness dialectic. What do you do in an intimate relationship when a person you care about asks an important question that you don’t want to answer? “Do you think I’m attractive?” “Are you having a good time?” “What’s my problem?” Your commitment to the relationship may compel you toward honesty, but your concern for the other person’s feelings and a desire for privacy may lead you to be less than completely

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

honest. Many people claim, “There are no secrets between my best friend and me,” or “I tell my sweetheart everything,” but that’s likely an overstatement. Wise communicators make choices about what they will and won’t share with loved ones—sometimes (but not always) for the other person’s sake (Goldsmith & Domann-Scholz, 2013). The same conflicts between openness and privacy operate externally in the revelation–concealment dialectic. If you and a longtime fellow worker haven’t been getting along, do you answer the boss’s question, “How’s it going?” honestly, or do you keep your disagreement to yourselves? If your family has had a run of bad (or good) financial luck and a friend asks to borrow (or lend) money, do you share your situation or keep quiet? If you’re part of a same-sex couple, but you’re not sure your relationship will be endorsed by others, when and how do you go “public” with that information (Suter et al., 2006, 2008)? All of these questions speak to tensions related to concealing versus revealing. These challenges have increased as social media make privacy boundaries more difficult to manage (Debatin et al., 2009). We take a closer look at privacy management in Chapter 10.

Strategies for Managing Dialectical Tensions Managing dialectical tensions can be challenging (Duran et al., 2011; Prentice & Kramer, 2006). Yet researchers have identified a number of communication strategies for dealing with them—most of which are unconscious (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006b). As you read on, think about which ones you use and how effective they are. In the face of conflicting desires, some relational partners choose denial—pretending to themselves and one another that the conflicts don’t exist. For example, a couple caught between the conflicting desires for stability and novelty might avoid the challenge by following predictable, if unexciting patterns of relating to one another. It’s easy to see that this approach isn’t likely to be satisfactory. Compromising is another unsatisfying approach. For example, the couple caught between the conflicting desires for predictability and novelty might settle for a lifestyle that is neither as predictable as one wants nor as surprise filled as the other seeks—not an ideal outcome. Other strategies try—often unconsciously—to defuse tensions. Communicators might alternate, choosing one end of the dialectical spectrum at some times and the other end on different occasions. Friends, for example, might manage the connection–autonomy dialectic by alternating between spending a large amount of time together and living independent lives. Or they might compartmentalize different areas of their relationship. For example, a couple might manage the openness–closedness dialectic by sharing almost all their feelings about mutual friends but keeping certain parts of their past romantic histories private. A more rewarding approach is to accept, and even embrace opposing desires. Barbara Montgomery (1993) describes a couple who accept both the needs for predictability and novelty by devising a “predictably novel” approach: Once a week they would do something together that

277

Watch and Discuss Look up and watch “Couples Swap Phones and Go Through Each Other’s History.” 1) Consider the role of relational dialectics (particularly openness–closedness) in this exercise. 2) Discuss the ethics of privacy management in an interpersonal relationship.

278

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

they had never done before. Similarly, Dawn Braithwaite and her colleagues (1998) found that stepfamilies often manage the tension between the “old family” and the “new family” by adapting and blending their family rituals. Another constructive way to manage opposing desires is by reframing them. Consider how a couple who felt hurt by one another’s unwillingness to share parts of their past might redefine the issue as an attractive aura of mystery. Rather than thinking “We’re keeping secrets about our past,” the partners might think, “Those secrets make things a little mysterious and exciting.” The desire for privacy would still remain, but it would no longer compete with a need for openness about every aspect of the past. Finally, it can be wise to reaffirm the fact that dialectical tensions will never disappear. Instead of trying to make them go away, reaffirming communicators accept—or even embrace—the challenges they present. The metaphorical view of relational life as a kind of rollercoaster reflects this orientation, and communicators who use reaffirmation view dialectical tensions as part of the ride.

COMMUNICATING ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS By now it is clear that relationships are complex, dynamic, and important. In this section, we look at ways to improve relational communication. We start by revisiting an important principle of interpersonal communication discussed in Chapter 1: Every message has a content and a relational dimension.

CONTENT AND RELATIONAL MESSAGES The most obvious component of most messages is their content—the subject being discussed. The content of statements such as “It’s your turn to do the dishes” or “I’m busy Saturday night” is obvious. In addition, however, every message—both verbal and nonverbal—also has a second, relational dimension, which makes statements about how the communicators feel toward one another (Knobloch & Solomon, 2003; Watzlawick et al., 1967). These relational messages deal with one or more social needs: intimacy, affinity, respect, and control. Consider the examples we just mentioned: • Imagine two ways of saying “It’s your turn to do the dishes”—one that is demanding and another that is matter-of-fact. Notice how the different nonverbal messages make statements about how the sender views control in this part of the relationship. The demanding tone says, in effect, “I have a right to tell you what to do around the house”; whereas the matter-of-fact one suggests, “I’m just reminding you of something you might have overlooked.” • You can easily imagine two ways to deliver the statement “I’m busy Saturday night,” one with little affection and the other with much liking.

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

Most of the time we are unaware of the relational messages that bombard us every day. Sometimes these messages don’t capture our awareness because they match our belief about the amount of control, liking, or intimacy that is appropriate in a relationship. For example, you probably won’t be offended if your boss tells you to drop everything and tackle a certain job because you agree that supervisors have the right to direct employees. However, if your boss delivered the order in a condescending, sarcastic, or abusive tone of voice, you would probably be offended. Your complaint wouldn’t be with the order itself but with the way it was delivered. “I may work for this company,” you might think, “but I’m not a slave or an idiot. Ideserve to be treated like a human being.” Exactly how are relational messages communicated? As the boss– employee example suggests, they are usually expressed nonverbally, often through tone of voice. To test this fact for yourself, imagine how you could act while saying “Can you help me for a minute?” in a way that communicates each of the following relationships: superiority aloofness helplessness sexual desire friendliness irritation Although nonverbal behaviors are a good source of relational messages, remember that they are ambiguous. The sharp tone you take as a personal insult might be due to fatigue, and the interruption you take as an attempt to ignore your ideas might be a sign of pressure that has nothing to do with you. Before you jump to conclusions about relational clues, it is a good idea to verify the accuracy of your interpretation with the other person: “When you cut me off, it seemed like you were angry with me. Were you?” Not all relational messages are nonverbal. Social scientists use the term metacommunication to describe messages that refer to other messages (Craig, 2005; Weder, 2008). In other words, metacommunication is communication about communication. Whenever we discuss a relationship with others, we are metacommunicating: “I wish we could stop arguing so much,” or “I appreciate how honest you’ve been with me.” Despite its importance, overt metacommunication isn’t a common feature of many relationships. In fact, there seems to be an aversion to it, even among many intimates (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Zhang & Stafford, 2008). When 90 people were asked to identify the taboo subjects in their personal relationships, the most frequent topics involved metacommunication (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985). For example, people were reluctant to discuss the state of their current relationships and the norms (“rules”) that governed their lives together. Nevertheless, there are times when it becomes necessary to talk about what is going on between

279

280

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

you and the other person. And research shows that metacommunication can play a vital role in relational maintenance and repair (Becker et al., 2008). A related concept is what scholars call relational work (Jensen & Rauer, 2014, 2016). This kind of metacommunication focuses specifically on relationship problems. For romantic couples, this can involve discussions about finances, in-laws, or the way relational decisions are made. Sometimes partners talk about these issues directly with each other. Other times, they air their problems to friends. It’s no surprise that discussing relational troubles with others—to the exclusion of doing so with one’s partner—is harmful to relationships. But the good news is that couples who engage in relational work together report happier and longer relationships. And the principle extends beyond romantic partners: Negotiating interpersonal challenges can lead to improved relations with friends, family, and colleagues. Chapter 11 will have more to say about communication and conflict management.

MAINTAINING AND SUPPORTING RELATIONSHIPS Just as gardens need tending, cars need tune-ups, and bodies need exercise, relationships need ongoing maintenance to keep them successful and satisfying (Lydon & Quinn, 2013). And when the chips are down, we count on our interpersonal relationships to offer the support we need (Lakey, 2013).

Relational Maintenance As noted earlier, relational maintenance can be defined as communication that keeps relationships running smoothly and satisfactorily. What kinds of communication help maintain relationships? Researchers have identified several strategies that couples use to keep their interaction satisfying (Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013): • Positivity. Keeping the relational climate polite and upbeat and also avoiding criticism. • Openness. Talking directly about the nature of the relationship and disclosing your personal needs and concerns. This includes metacommunication and relational work, as discussed in the preceding section. • Assurances. Letting the other person know—both verbally and nonverbally—that he or she matters to you and that you are committed to the relationship. • Social networks. Being invested in each other’s friends and family. • Sharing tasks. Helping one another take care of life’s chores and obligations. These maintenance strategies aren’t just for romantic relationships. One study analyzed college students’ email to see which maintenance approaches they used (Johnson et al., 2008). With family and friends, two strategies were used most: openness (“Things have been a little crazy for me lately”) and social networks (“How are you and Sam? Hopefully good”). With romantic partners, however, assurances (“This is just a little email to say I love you”) were the most-used maintenance devices.

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

Social media can play an important role in maintaining relationships (Ledbetter & Keating, 2015). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram give communicators the chance to keep up with each other through status updates (Craig & Wright, 2012; Dainton, 2013). Of course, there’s the risk that constant updates will leave little to talk about in person, as the cartoon on this page wryly suggests. Emails can help too, though calling is particularly valuable for more intimate topics (Utz, 2007). Even a streak of daily Snapchat exchanges can help maintain a relationship (Stein, 2017). One study found that women use social media for relational maintenance more often than men do, regardless of the type of relationship (Houser et al., 2012). This finding is consistent with research showing that women expect and receive more maintenance communication with their female friends than men do with male friends (Hall et al., 2011). Social media can be especially useful for meeting the challenges of longdistance relationships. These relationships are increasingly common, and they can be as stable as, or even more so than, geographically close relationships (Merolla, 2010). This is true not only for romantic and family relationships, but also for friendships (Johnson, Becker, et al., 2009). Thekey is a

281

282

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

commitment to relational maintenance. In one study, female college students said that openness and mutual problem solving are vital maintenance strategies in long-distance dating relationships (McGuire & Kinnery, 2010). In another study, both men and women reported that openness (self-disclosure) was the most important factor for maintaining their long-distance friendships (Johnson, Haigh, et al., 2009). They conceded that sharing tasks and practical help may be less viable options in long-distance relationships (“I’d help if I could, but I’m a thousand miles away”). We talk more about relational maintenance strategies for close relationships in Chapter 10.

A S S E S S I N G YO U R CO M M U N I C AT I O N

Relational Maintenance With a particular relationship partner in mind, read each of the following 14 questions, and consider the extent to which you agree or disagree with each. Use a 7-point scale, with 1 = “completely disagree,” 7 = “completely agree,” and 2 through 6 representing levels of agreement between these endpoints.

_____

1. Acts positively toward me.

_____ 2. Is understanding. _____ 3. Talks about his/her feelings. _____ 4. Discusses the quality of our relationship. _____ 5. Talks about our plans for the future. _____ 6. Includes our friends in our activities. _____

7. Shares in joint responsibilities that face us.

_____ 8. Is upbeat when we are together. _____

9. Is forgiving of me.

_____ 10. Is open about his/her feelings. _____ 11. Tells me how she/he feels about the relationship. _____ 12. Tells me how much I mean to him/her. _____ 13. Does things with our friends. _____ 14. Helps with the tasks that need to be done. Adapted from Stafford, L. (2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the Revised Relationship Maintenance Behavior Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 278–303; and Stafford, L. (2016). Marital sanctity, relationship maintenance, and marital quality. Journal of FamilyIssues, 37, 119–131.

For scoring information, see page 289 at the end of the chapter.

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

Social Support Whereas relational maintenance is about keeping a relationship thriving, social support is about helping others during challenging times by providing emotional, informational, or instrumental resources (MacGeorge et al., 2011). Social support has been consistently linked to mental and physical health (Lakey, 2013) and can be offered in a variety of ways: • Emotional support: Few things are more helpful during times of stress, hurt, or grief than a loved one who listens with empathy and responds in caring ways (Reis & Clark, 2013). Chapter 7 (pages 215–217) describes what supporting does and doesn’t sound like when responding to others’ emotional needs. It’s important to keep your message person centered (High & Solomon, 2016)—that is, focused on the emotions of the speaker (“this must be so difficult for you”) rather than minimizing those feelings (“it’s not the end of the world”) or diverting attention (“tomorrow is a new day”). • Informational support: The people in our lives can be helpful information sources. They can give us recommendations for shopping, advice about relationships, or observations about our blind spots. Of course, keep in mind that advice is most likely to be regarded as supportive when it’s wanted and requested by the person in need. • Instrumental support: Sometimes support is best given by rolling up your sleeves and doing a task or favor to show that you care (Semmer et al., 2008). This can be as simple as a ride to the airport or as involved as caregiving during illness. We count on loved ones to offer assistance in times of need, and instrumental support is a primary marker of a meaningful friendship (“a friend in need is a friend indeed”). Sometimes just being available for interaction can provide social support. One study found that patients who texted with friends after getting out of surgery required less pain medication that those who didn’t (Guillory et al., 2015). It wasn’t just a matter of distraction, because playing video games didn’t have the same analgesic effect for the patients. The researchers maintain that interpersonal interaction—even via texting— offers social support and a measure of pain relief. This serves as a reminder that the simple act of communicating with others when they’re hurting is an act of kindness that can help. Social support can also be found online (Cole et al., 2017), often from people whom you may never meet in person (Rains et al., 2015). In fact, approximately 20 percent of internet users go online to find others with similar health problems (Fox, 2011). A common reason is that they feel more comfortable talking with like-minded people with whom they have few formal ties—particularly when the health issues are embarrassing or stigma laden. As an example, there are blogs that offer social support for people who are morbidly obese (Sanford, 2010). These sites become interactive communities where people with similar conditions share their struggles and offer each other affirming feedback. One blogger put it this way: “When I have a bad week on the scale, all I have to do is write up an entry and post it on the blog. My readers are always full of good advice, comments and support” (Sanford, 2010, p. 577).

283

284

PART 3

D I M E NSI ONS OF I NTE R P ERSO N A L REL AT I O N S H I PS

REPAIRING DAMAGED RELATIONSHIPS Sooner or later, even the most satisfying and stable relationships hit a bumpy patch. Some problems arise from outside forces: work, finances, competing relationships, and so on. At other times, problems arise from differences and disagreements within the relationship. In Chapter 11, we offer guidelines for dealing with these sorts of challenges. A third type of relational problem comes from relational transgressions, when one partner violates the explicit or implicit terms of the relationship, letting the other one down in some important way.

Types of Relational Transgressions Table 9.2 lists some types of relational transgressions. Violations such as these fall into different categories (Guerrero & Bachman. 2008), which we now describe. Minor Versus Significant Some of the items listed in Table 9.2 aren’t in-

herently transgressions, and in small doses they can actually aid relationships. For instance, a little distance can make the heart grow fonder, a little jealousy can be a sign of affection, and a little anger can start the process of resolving a gripe. In large and regular doses, however, these acts become

@work

Relational Repair on the Job

When workers make mistakes that affect others, there’s often a need for relational repair. Stanford University’s Emma Seppala (2015) maintains that compassion trumps toughness when responding to employee and coworker mistakes. Seppala cites studies showing that lashing out when things go wrong erodes workplace loyalty. And when employees work in a climate of fear and anxiety, they’re not as creative or productive. By contrast, showing compassion builds interpersonal and professional bonds. This isn’t to suggest that mistakes should be overlooked; rather, there are better and worse ways to call them out and repair the damage. Here are Seppala’s suggestions for addressing professional infractions. Although they’re geared for managers, the principles are helpful for any workplace relationships:

1. Take a moment. Rash reactions to mistakes will likely leave relational scars. By stepping back and taking time to reflect, you’ll allow for a more thoughtful response. 2. Put yourself in the other’s shoes. Keep in mind what it’s like when you’ve made a mistake on the job, and try to have empathy for the offender’s plight. This is especially important for company veterans working with newcomers. 3. Forgive. It’s in everyone’s best interest to treat transgressors with grace. One supervisor described it this way: “It’s not that I let them off the hook, but by choosing a compassionate response when they know they have made a mistake, they are not destroyed, they have learned a lesson, and they want to improve for you because you’ve been kind to them.”

C HA PTER 9 D ynamics of I nterpersonal Relationships

TABLE 9.2 Some

Types of Relational Transgressions

Copy of Interplay_ The Process of Interpersonal Communication14.pdf - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2024)